PROLOG - TO GET THE DETAILS OF THE F-UK-US ATTACK ON SYRIA STRAIGHT :
Trump's Disastrous Syria Attack
by Ron Paul
Over the weekend, President Trump celebrated firing more than 100 missiles into Syria by Tweeting, "Mission Accomplished!" They say if you cannot learn from history you are condemned to repeat it. So I guess we are repeating it.
We all remember that "Mission Accomplished" was the banner behind then-President Bush as he gloated aboard a US navy ship that the war in Iraq had been won. After his "victory, " however, some 4, 000 US military personnel were killed, perhaps a million Iraqis were killed, and the country's infrastructure and social fabric were so badly destroyed that they probably can never be repaired.
Actually, there is much about the US attack on Syria that reminds us of Iraq.
With Iraq, the US moved in to start bombing before international inspectors had completed their mission to verify whether or not Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Had they been allowed to complete their mission and verify that he did not, imagine the suffering, death, and destruction that could have been avoided.
In Syria, the US decided to start bombing before the international inspectors were even allowed to start checking claims that Assad gassed his own people in Douma. Why? What was the rush? Was Washington afraid they might not find Assad guilty?
Who really benefits from US attacks on the Syrian government? There were reports that ISIS began making moves immediately after the air strikes. Do we really want to be al-Qaeda and ISIS's airforce? Is that going to keep us safer? I remember when al-Qaeda was actually considered our enemy, not an ally in overthrowing the last secular government in the Middle East.
Will Syria's Christians be better off after the recent US attack? Just over a week ago Christians celebrated Easter in Aleppo for the first time in years. What changed? The Syrian army kicked out al-Qaeda, which had been occupying the eastern part of the city. So no, Christians will be much worse off if our "moderate terrorists" take control of Syria.
If Syria really had sarin and other chemical weapons factories, does it make sense for the US to bomb the buildings and risk killing thousands by widely disbursing the poisons? Does it make sense to risk killing Syrian civilians with chemical weapons in retaliation for allegations that the Syrian government killed civilians with chemical weapons? No, it seems more like the phony "mobile WMD labs" we were told that Saddam Hussein had constructed.
If the US knew Syria was manufacturing chemical weapons in the buildings they bombed, why not notify the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)?
The OPCW had certified the very building the US bombed as chemical weapons free not that long ago. Why not just call them up and ask them to check it out? After all, they were just arriving in the country as the US started bombing.
There are many more questions about President Trump's terrible decision to again make war on Syria. For example, where is Congress? It was disgraceful to see Speaker Paul Ryan telling the President he needs no Congressional authorization to attack Syria. All Members of Congress take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and the Constitution says that only Congress can declare war. Does that oath mean nothing these days?
President Trump will come to regret the day he let the neocons take over his foreign policy. Their track record is abysmal. His attack on Syria was clearly illegal and should his party lose the House in November he may find his new fair-weather friends in the Democratic Party quickly turning foul.
It is official, the USAmerican troops are staying in Syria
Fake chemical attack mission accomplished!
France's Macron says he persuaded Trump to keep troops in Syria
PARIS, April 15 (Reuters) - French President Emmanuel Macron on Sunday said he had convinced U.S. President Donald Trump to keep troops in Syria for the long term and limit joint strikes to chemical weapons facilities.
Early on Saturday, the United States, France and Britain launched 105 missiles targeting what they said were three chemical weapons facilities in Syria in retaliation for a suspected poison gas attack in Douma on April 7.
"Ten days ago, President Trump was saying 'the United States should withdraw from Syria'. We convinced him it was necessary to stay, " Macron said in an interview broadcast by BFM TV, RMC radio and Mediapart online news.
"We convinced him it was necessary to stay for the long term."
My initial conclusion, based on social media, was (mostly) correct
By Jim Stone - jimstone.is
The only mistake is I thought S-400 missiles were used. Instead, S-200 and less expensive missiles were used. There is a false claim that only 12 cruise missiles were hit. In fact, 12 cruise missiles were shot down defending ONE base, which equaled 100 percent of what was fired at it. Sub sonic cruise missiles are obviously useless against Russia's missiles.
I am going to stick with my assessment that something big was going to happen that caused the U.S. to stop the attack. All the cruise missiles could report their status to the launch site, and the U.S. was sitting there watching them vanish before they reached their targets. "reporting back" was early 90's tech, that the cruise missiles had even then. So it would have been ominous to watch them vanish, And then suddenly, Russian planes were in the air, preparing to attack. That did happen, regardless of whatever any claims are. And within 20 minutes (before they reached their targets) it was suddenly announced that the attack which was supposed to last for days was suddenly over, after only about an hour. Something big happened, and no one is saying what. My guess is that Russia made the right threat. Here is the next day report from RT:
"The majority of rockets fired in Syria by the UK, US, and France were intercepted by Syrian air defense systems, the Russian Defense Ministry said. Russian air defense units were not involved in repelling the attack. The warplanes and vessels of the US and its allies launched over 100 cruise missiles and air-surface missiles on Syrian civil and military facilities, the ministry stated.
The strikes were conducted by two US ships stationed in the Red Sea, with tactical air support from the Mediterranean and Rockwell B-1 Lancer bombers from Al-Tanf coalition airbase in Syria's Homs province, according to the statement.
Syrian Al-Dumayr Military Airport, located 40 km north-east from Damascus, was attacked by 12 cruise missiles, the Russian MoD confirmed, adding that all missiles were intercepted by Syrian air defense systems.
To repel the attack, Damascus deployed Soviet-made surface-to-air missile systems, including S-125 (NATO reporting name: SA-3 Goa), S-200 (SA-5 Gammon), 2K12 Kub (SA-6 Gainful) and Buk.
Russia did not deploy its air defense systems located in Syria to intercept the American, British, and French missiles.
Earlier, the ministry issued a statement saying that none of the missiles launched by the US and its allies reached the Russian air defense zones that shield facilities in the port city of Tartus and Khmeimim Air Base.
MY SALIENT COMMENT THAT I HAVE MADE BEFORE: Gee, if all those trillions did not go missing from the Pentagon on 911, trillions of dollars, which were hit by that "plane" that impacted right where the records were kept maybe old Russian tech would not have had such a high kill rate against American missiles, which would have been a LOT BETTER if those trillions stayed in the budget!
The U.S. military can talk all it wants about blowing destroyed or totally weak nations away, and talk all about how great it is and how invincible it is, but if Russian tech even hit half the incoming missiles the U.S. military had better start thinking twice, and all the war hawks had better figure out where all that money went!
Syria hit 70 plus percent of America's "nice, new, "smart" missiles with 15+ years outdated Russian crap! Syria did not even use anything "good, " and it was Syria, not Russia, that repelled the attack. That dear folks equals DOOM. You can't win if a relatively small economy nation who bought old Russian toys was able to repel you with no help from Russia, and partied the next day!
The bottom line is that unlike the gulf war, where America had real superiority, this time around America went against technology that happened to be "enough". All it takes is "enough", it really does not matter if your missiles have 128 bit tech when 16 bit is "enough". The game has changed.