Bombing in Syria in Response to Chemical Attack

I follow a few twitter accounts that analyze military actions involving Russia. As you may or may not know, there were some attacks on Syrian military targets tonight that are well out of the range of normal operations.

Based on my readings, I doubt the US has anything other than a supporting role in this for a few reasons:
1. Russia has threatened force against us if we bomb Syria. No one is sure if this means they'll try to shoot cruise missiles down or if they will go after the fleet.
2. A joint response with France was promised. Macron's red line was crossed, and France has the ability to project the kind of power needed for an airstrike.
3. IAF hit targets at the base that is the suspected target in tonight's bombings about a month ago, when Iranian drones operating from the base intruded into Israeli airspace.

My bet is on this being an IAF strike.

What think ye?

At the moment, the US, and Israel have "declined to comment", and the other possible actor in this, France, has yet to weigh in. I'm monitoring the situation, so far all of my resources are still waiting for more facts to come in.

The US and France have both issued denials.

Yeah, looks like the Israeli's.

Although, it's worth bearing in mind that any such attack is effectively a US attack. Pentagon denials are disingenuous.

In these instances I think the word is palatable rather than disingenuous.

It's a political convenience rather than a lie - it is accepted as a suspension of belief, rather than actually believed - and one designed as a firebreak from things getting worse between the West and Russia.

The United States does not control the Israeli military.

No, but we supply them with equipment, intelligence, and a blanket promise of support if thing's go south for them. I'd be somewhat surprised if they didn't at least tell us in advance what they were planning if they didn't ask for our okay.

True to a degree. But reality isn't like I believe its garamet who likes to claim that if the U.S. so much as smiles in the direction of leaders of another country that we are thus responsible for their actions from now until the end of time.

I'm pretty sure it was her who maintained that if the U.S. had simply "given the word" Saddam Hussein would've been overthrown at any time.

Israel is a client state of the US. They do not conduct themselves independently in international affairs.

Complete BS. They are an ally of the U.S. same as United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea and various other countries.

Maybe, but their relationship to the US is not the same as most of the countries you listed. It is obvious to anyone with a shred of intelligence and knowledge of the world that Israel has and continues to benefit from a level of US backing that no other nation enjoys and through it the ability to act in ways that would otherwise generate international condemnation for any of the other countries you list. I mean how many US allies do you know who could equally get away with things like forced land grabs, human relocation and a undeclared nuclear arsenal like they do? Few if any. He's right in the sense that Israel cannot and does not take foreign policy actions without the US being ok with it, and that includes bombing campaigns.

I would agree in the past but twitler loose lips does not know how to keep a secret.

I think Dayton just got a boner.

Hence my use of the word "somewhat."

Why does Ricky hate jews, so much?

Well, the Irish when they came to the U.S. were heavily discriminated against and Jews have historically been discriminated against so it probably has something to do with competition for pity.

Why doesn't the U.S. retaliate by sinking some Syrian Navy ships? They have a couple of frigates and a dozen or so missile boats. Chances at least some of them are at sea at any given time. And there are reports that Syrian naval vessels have helped bombard rebel areas near the coast.

1) Sinking a couple of Syrian naval vessels would quickly kill as many Syrian military as died in the chemical weapons attack.
2) No collateral damage at sea. All the dead would be Syrian military.
3) Unlikely to encounter Russian aircraft or personnel at sea.
4) The U.S. Navy needs some practice against actual targets at sea. Use an attack submarine to destroy one. Have Hornets from a carrier take out another one.

No. The Syrian Navy is decrepit, and mostly tied to a pier. Waste of munitions, time, money, etc.

Then no one should whine if we confine the vessels not tired to a pier to Davy Jones locker.

False. As was stated, "Waste of munitions, time, money, etc.". I am 100% against wasting munitions, time, and money.

If YOU want to pay for that fruitless exercise, be my guest.

Hey, every training exercise is a learning experience. Nothing wrong with a little target practice.

Including civilian casualties?

When one is speaking of isreal one should recognize a person can hate Zionists while not minding Jews

Aren't all Zionists Jews?

The Internet doesn't seem able to make that distinction.

No.

Technically they don't have to be, but I would imagine most are. However all Jews are not Zionists.

Of course but the fact remains that for the most part, if you are hating "Zionists" you are in fact hating "Jews"

Not really. Because I don't hate the Jewish religion. I can be totally cool with Jews and not believe that they are entitled to any land because of their faith. You can be Jewish all day long and that is great, but I am not expecting the owners of Palestinian land to give it to you because some dude saw a burning bush while tripping in the desert.

But hey, if you are up for giving up land because some unproven God said so I have to say my God has told me that your house is my holy home and that you should give it to me because I am her favorite. You would not want to make my goddess angry.