What's Trump up to now?

I think I already made a prediction in this very thread that Trump will send groud troops to a new war within six months of being sworn in.
 
Yeah, but who would have predicted though that it could be in Chicago.

I bet someone at some point thought about sending cruise missiles into anti-trump protests or protests like the womans march.
 
If boots hit the ground, I mean in a big way, it is more than likely our operations and Russian operations will stay as far from each other as possible. Although in public, we may say we do not communicate with the Russians and vice versa in regards to our operations. Privately however, I am sure it is quite different, especially to avoid escalation. The main mission is still proxy influence, not all out war between two powers. Putin still thinks that Assad/Syria, has enough to offer Russia that using Russian resources to prop up the regime is still profitable. TARSIS, is still very much vital to Russian power projection and in an all out war, TARSIS would be the first installation to go, along with the little that Syria has left to offer Russia.
 
@BigGuyCIA

This is very true. The rivalry is almost as deep as the one with the Saudis and the Iranians, if not deeper. The secession of East Pakistan and its support by India, did not help one bit.

Although Russia and the U.S. are competitors, they both value something over nothing, which would absolutely happen to any country they actually go to war over. If things are bad now in Syria, there won't be a Syria left if the U.S. and Russia go all out. Simply put, there is really no situation where the benefits of total war would be preferable to the current situation.
 
Last edited:
Tell that to all those people that see this missile attack as "The moment he became Presidential!" - isn't it kinda funny though? You have to blow shit up to become Presidential ..., granted it's the media that's creating this right now, but there are quite a few Dems that think Trump was correct. Except, that this attack was as meaningless like ineffective, both from a military and diplomatic point of view. I mean even though I despise military actions, I do think that they might serve a purpose if they are part of a larger strategy, I am not a general after all. But I doubt that Trump has any strategy here, and it shows.
 
I do not think it was useless at all, if anything, it was a statement.

A very lukewarm statement, but it was better than what Obama did, which was absolutely nothing.

There are rumors the base received a warning before the attack but it was a message that the U.S. is no longer going to act like a little bitch, that the times of Obama are over, at least I hope.
 
If you say so. However if I was Assad this wouldn't bother me in the slightest, since the nation has been bombed for the last 6 years more bombs are going to do exactly what now? It would probably bother me more what Putin said to all of this which we don't know, as I can imagine that Putin is definetly not happy about this attack with poison gas of which we also know way to little.

But Trump bombing this airfield being a sign of strength? Doubtfull, not in my opinion. Actually it's a rash action which tells us that Trump has no actual strategy in how to deal with Syria be it in the short or long term and the US doing it on their own shows the international community, has no coherent plan in how to deal with the conflict, where is the collaboration with the UN? Or at the very least with the Brits, France, Germany or well the NATO. It's obvious that this conflict can not be solved by one nation alone, now even less then ever since the attack by the US was also a violation of international law the US can be the leading factor here, but it would require a clear strategy and guidline.

The effects of this missile strike in real terms is very weak, while the political consequences aren't very clear yet. Is this a single incident? Will the US now actually engage completely in the war? Or does it mean only if poison gas is used? Could this eventually even lead to US boots on Syran ground? Maybe this will lead to Iran getting closer to Assad, same with Russia and other nations which are not very fond of the US, Russia could decide send more troops and support to Assad particularly to combat such attacks. But that's just pure speculation. And that's the main problem here. If the intention was to stend a strong signal, then it has to be actually one that is clear and even than it could end up being the wrong kind of message.

If this was some kind of statement, then it was a very shitty one. It confuses the allies while telling nothing decesive to the enemies. A typical Trump move by the way ...
 
I have to assume that it was more a political move than a military one.

First, it lets Putin know that Trump IS NOT Obama, which helps in EVERY way. It may not have been very effective MILITARILY, but hopefully, it shows the U.S., is NOT going to be as isolationist as Putin and others would have hoped.

Second, like you brought up, it is a test in a way. Will the Russians react by pulling a stunt of their own? The Iranians? Maybe the goal is to cause them to either respond with a show of force or look weak, which coincidentally, would ALSO weaken Russian and Iranian credibility if they were to actually respond in kind. A kind of lose-lose situation for Russia and Iran.

Three, if Russia and Iran invest even more resources into Syria, wouldn't Syria be a Russian and Iranian mini Vietnam? How much financial and military resources are these nations willing to invest into Syria? Will their intervention be perpetual? If so, what is the economic and political costs?

Four, unlike the U.S, Russian and Iranian resources are not nearly as vast. If Russia and Iran are busy with Syria, Iran with Iraq, the strain will eventually show. Russia and Iran will have to decide what nations they will actively support, and what nations will have to remain on the backburner. Will this cause dissention within the Russian dominated CSTO?
 
Last edited:
DarkCorp said:
I have to assume that it was more a political move than a military one.

First, it lets Putin know that Trump IS NOT Obama, which helps in EVERY way. It may not have been very effective MILITARILY, but hopefully, it shows the U.S., is NOT going to be as isolationist as Putin and others would have hoped.
Click to expand...


Let us assume you're right and this is what Trumps trying to say or the message they want to send out - not that I really know it, I mean I am not Trump.

But a large part of the people voted him exactly beacuse they wanted a more isolationist approach of America-first, not getting draged in to senseless and expensive conflicts, also one huge argument for Trump was the idea that Hillary would be all confrontational with Russia. So when you're saying his strategy is to be less isolationism, then it is definetly breaking one of his huge promises. And please, don't tell me that some 80 or 100 people died in a gas attack is something of a relevance here. People die all the time in Syra and all over the world. 100 000 of people died already in this meaningless conflict, as horrorible as this attack was, but in the big picture it really doesn't make a difference.
 
Crni Vuk said:
where is the collaboration with the UN? Or at the very least with the Brits, France, Germany
Click to expand...
Like any of them would have done anything ever at any point.

Especially after France and the UK's little adventure in Libya a couple years ago.
 
Trump's press guy said something positive about Hitler. "Hitler didn't use chemical weapons". Ummm, just stop dude. Like be quiet. And go away.

Oh wait, is he denying the Holocaust? Or something?
 
Last edited:
TheGM said:
Like any of them would have done anything ever at any point.

Especially after France and the UK's little adventure in Libya a couple years ago.
Click to expand...
That's not the point, I know the US loves to shit all over the UN and the international community, but strange enough you had no issue in taking help with Irak and Afghanistan from NATO members. You can fuck shit up, but you leave the cleaning up to others. The point is that when it comes to situations like Syria you need some kind of strategy or concept that others can at least follow, or you always end up with fucked up shit like what France did or Trump now.

Is this really so difficult to understand?
 
"“When it comes to Sarin gas, [Hitler] was not using the gas on his own people the same way that Assad is doing,” Spicer explained.

“I understand your point. Thank you. I appreciate that. He brought them into the Holocaust centers, I understand that. I was saying in the way that Assad used them where he went into town, dropped them into the middle of town. I appreciate the clarification. That was not the intent.”
Click to expand...

Holocaust centers? What?
 
How this bumbling idiot* ever got this job is completely beyond me. He sure is entertaining, though.








*I would like to formally apologize for this grave insult to the bumbling idiot community
 
MutantScalper said:
Trump's press guy said something positive about Hitler. "Hitler didn't use chemical weapons". Ummm, just stop dude. Like be quiet. And go away.

Oh wait, is he denying the Holocaust? Or something?
Click to expand...

He meant not using them in combat. Hitler was gassed in WW1 and it's theorized it affected him so much that he forbad any use of chemical weapons.

Still a really stupid thing to say though. Spicer should have not mentioned Hitler at all, or failing that, been very precise and clear with his words and what he actually meant. Judging from @Buxbaum666's video however it seems that was never an option.
 
I think Crni went into some detail in previous topics about why the Nazi Germany never did use chemical weapons against the allies.
 
Mostly fear of retaliation. As far as I know, the Germans thought that the Allieds also had access to nerve gas, even though they actually didn't.
Only the japanese army used chemical and biological weapons in WW2 (well, there was an american freighter carrying mustard gas grenades that was sunk, and a polish officer used a mustard gas bomb to destroy a bridge).
 
Crni Vuk said:
You can fuck shit up, but you leave the cleaning up to others.
Click to expand...
I didn't fuck shit. don't put that on me. I wasn't even in that day.
Hassknecht said:
Mostly fear of retaliation. As far as I know, the Germans thought that the Allieds also had access to nerve gas, even though they actually didn't.
Only the japanese army used chemical and biological weapons in WW2 (well, there was an american freighter carrying mustard gas grenades that was sunk, and a polish officer used a mustard gas bomb to destroy a bridge).
Click to expand...
And for what is worth Hitler wasn't that big a fan of them considering his run in with during the great war.

Bonus: The UK was gonna gas the shit out of everybody if the Germans tried landing troops on their island.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top