Another day, another war

Our weapon is piety and sanctimony. No, our two weapons are piety, sanctimony, and hypocrisy. Our three weapons are piety, sanctimony, hypocrisy, and a whole lot of bombs. Trump must have thought it was wonderful that he had an opportunity to wrap himself up in the flag and babble about god.

My fellow Americans, on Tuesday Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad launched a horrible chemical weapons attack on innocent civilians. Using a deadly nerve agent, Assad choked out the lives of helpless men, women and children. It was a slow and brutal death for so many. Even beautiful babies were cruelly murdered in this very barbaric attack. No child of God should ever suffer such horror. Tonight I ordered a targeted military strike on the airfield in Syria from where the chemical attack was launched. It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons. There can be no dispute that Syria used banned chemical weapons, violated its obligations under the chemical weapons convention, and ignored the urging of the UN Security Council. Years of previous attempts at changing Assad’s behaviour have all failed and failed very dramatically. As a result, the refugee crisis continues to deepen and the region continues to destabilise, threatening the United States and its allies. Tonight I call on all civilised nations to join us in seeking to end the slaughter and bloodshed in Syria, and also to end terrorism of all kinds and all types. We ask for God’s wisdom as we face the challenge of our very troubled world. We pray for the lives of the wounded and for the souls of those who have passed, and we hope that as long as America stands for justice, then peace and harmony will in the end prevail. Good night and God bless America and the entire world. Thank you.

Assad is a vile piece of shit, I agree. Killing civilians, or anyone for that matter, with nerve gas is a crime against humanity, and something should be done…I just don’t know what, except that wrecking a country with a hail of missiles doesn’t seem to be a very practical way to protect “beautiful babies”. It’s also not just Trump — Obama seems to have killed a lot of civilians with drone strikes, and clearly both parties are blithe about murdering foreigners.

And now I’m also confused by the Trumpian incoherence, which doesn’t help.

You know Syria is one of the countries under a travel ban — and Trump campaigned on opposing immigration and banning those “beautiful babies” from entering the US.

The United States’ record on allowing those “beautiful little babies” of Syria — and their battle-scarred parents — to come here as refugees from the war zone has been abysmal. Over one roughly equivalent stretch of time last year, our next-door neighbors in Canada took in 25,000 Syrian refugees while America took a paltry 841. Hillary Clinton pledged to increase that number — not dramatically — and she was savaged on the campaign trail by Trump and his supporters. Trump, of course, announced a ban on accepting refugees as part of his sweeping — and struck down — travel ban.

It’s also the case that only a few years (months?) ago, Trump was howling in opposition to any military intervention in the region.

It also means that he has thrown away all the cards in his hand and seems to be asking for a new deal.

He was pals with Putin; throw that away, because Putin is an Assad ally and is now talking about beefing up Syria’s defenses.

One of the reasons Trump hadn’t leapt into action before was that the openly hated ISIS was also fighting against the Assad regime. We are now allied with ISIS, in this one thing!

This one is almost amusing: Pepe the Frog is most unhappy with Trump. Milo Yiannopoulos, Richard Spencer, Gavin McInnes, Mike Cernovich, Charles Johnson, and Stefan Molyneux — among the most horrible awful people on the planet — are united in condemning the FAKE, GAY bombing. No word yet on Martin Shkreli’s opinion. I’m allied with these trolls, on this one thing? I’m feeling nauseated.

It’s total chaos!

And look at the flagrant embrace of god-talk in his last three sentences, the usual first resort of American politicians leaping into destruction. I don’t know what god he’s appealing to, but I’m beginning to suspect that it’s Arioch. Blood and souls! Blood and souls for Lord Arioch!


  1. ajbjasus says

    My heart sank when I heard about this first thing this morning (I’m in the UK). All the usual caveats about Trump, and warmongering apply, and also the fact that one can’t really believe anything one sees or reads, although this chemical attack does seem more credible that the WMD sham that triggered the Iraq war.

    However, in response to PZ’s ” something should be done…I just don’t know what”, maybe, just maybe if these strikes have, as we were told, destroyed the airfield and systems from which the Chemical attacks were launched it might help.

  2. davidnangle says

    The bombing is “fake” and “gay,” and yet the people that can hold those thoughts also think it’s a bad thing that nothing happened and the nothing has, inconceivably, a sexual preference?

    I can see that, metaphorically, Tomahawk missiles can be said to be thrusting, phallic, violating… but unless the target was located in a cenote… no, not even then. You can’t ascribe a sexual alignment to a bombing attack.

    Their very thoughts are departing the human realm. Or is it that they are losing the power of language?

  3. says

    Maybe the bombing was necessary, but if it were, it should have been done in consultation with congress and with our allies.

  4. ajbjasus says

    PZ – Agreed – we are told here that the Brits were consulted and concurred – I don’t know who else was or wasn’t. They’d never have got a UN resolution though given the Russian veto.

  5. rietpluim says

    Until now, the West’s policies in the Middle East were driven by short-term, short-sighted selfishness.
    Now it’s only short-term and short-sighted.
    Not that much has changed.

  6. says

    Good night and God bless America and the entire world.

    Looks like the “all lives matter” activists have accomplished something!

  7. rietpluim says

    Bombs don’t work. Bombs have never worked. The West has tried to solve problems in the Middle East with bombs for ages, and it only increased the suffering. What if we instead:

    1. Stop acting like we own the fucking place
    2. Stop installing and deposing dictators at our whim
    3. Stop buying oil from dictators
    4. Stop selling weapons to dictators
    5. Stop giving or selling anything to dictators, including respect
    6. Stop treating Israel like it is an ally and a civilized country
    7. Respect the local people’s interests
    8. Support local organizations who promote non-violence, democracy and human rights

    Perhaps then there won’t be any problems that have to be solved with bombs in the first place

  8. starfleetdude says

    The Syrian air force’s attack on civilians using sarin gas was a blatant provocation against Assad’s previous deal to refrain from using chemical weapons that was made back in 2013 with the U.S., which Russia at the time concurred with. Attacking the air base that the strike was based from is a proportional and appropriate response. Trump’s incoherence about it is because he isn’t really driving policy himself but is reacting to what he’s told by his advisers, and it surely didn’t escape his attention that Hillary Clinton forcefully said right after the terrible attack that the U.S. should strike Syrian air fields in response.

  9. says

    If you really want to cringe yourself into a hernia, watch the video of Trump’s speech. He switches back and forth between the two teleprompters like a robot, flubs the breaks in his speechwriter’s simplistic sentences, and gasps like a landed fish. It’s not inspiring. It doesn’t even inspire laughter.

  10. ashley says

    If Obama or Clinton do something dramatic it’s foolish and wrong. But if Trump does the same thing it is the right thing to do and approved of by God.

  11. thirdmill says

    If we’re going to bomb Syria, it seems to me the presidential palace would have been a far better target. At least that way one of the obstacles to peace in the region would have been removed. Might also send a message to the other Assads in the region.

  12. Zmidponk says


    and it surely didn’t escape his attention that Hillary Clinton forcefully said right after the terrible attack that the U.S. should strike Syrian air fields in response.

    With Trump, if it happened more than about ten minutes ago, you can’t be sure of that at all. Either that, or he will categorically say that Clinton did not say any such thing at all, and any reports about her saying it, down to and including any actual recordings of it, are ‘fake news’.

    I actually agree with targeted, limited strikes on the actual places used to launch chemical weapon attacks, and where the chemical weapons are stored, if that can be identified, for the very simple reason that much of the world has agreed that chemical weapons should not be used by anybody, and this ban is worthless unless it is enforced by force, if necessary, and the conduct of the Assad regime has shown that anything short of force doesn’t work with them. The only problem is that there is a possibility that this could lead to the US being drawn into the Syrian conflict in a much more direct way – as in, putting troops on the ground and invading the place, especially if someone as easy to goad as Trump stays President. If Russia are still backing Assad, this could become another Vietnam-like proxy war.

  13. ajbjasus says

    Interestingly when news of the Syrian attack was broadcast here (UK) experts said the Russian\Syrian story that the Syrians had accidentally hit a stockpile of rebel chemical weapons and released the gas couldn’t be true, because that wouldn’t result in precursors combining to produce the fatal gas.

    Today an expert said the US airstrike couldn’t target and destroy the chemical weapons stockpile because that might result in the release of fatal gasses. The impact was only on the capbility to deliver the weapons, not the weapons thmeselves.

  14. starfleetdude says


    Sarin gas is a binary agent that has to be combined carefully to form, which is why the Russian claim about it somehow being rebel held and set off by a strike by the Syrian air force not credible. On the other hand, the Syrian army does have other chemical agents in their stockpiles that could be released by a conventional air strike, which is why those stockpiles weren’t targeted by the U.S.

  15. says

    Cory Booker’s statement:

    “The chemical attack in Syria that killed dozens of innocent civilians, including many children, is a heinous act and a crime against humanity. The ongoing war in Syria is a tragedy of historic proportions – the loss of life there unfathomable — and the United States should always seek to, in a thoughtful and deliberate way, alleviate human suffering and prevent acts of barbarity whenever possible.

    History has shown the dire consequences of military engagement without a clear plan or strategy. Any escalation in our engagement in the continuing conflict in Syria demands that the President put forth a clear plan for the American people and that he seek authorization for the use of military force from Congress as the Constitution requires. Escalation without the support of Congress, the American people, and our allies would create more instability and put lives at risk.”

  16. says

    Bombing parts of the Syrian military is not the same as bombing ISIS. Syria is country with an elected leader, the evil Assad. We bombed a sovereign country with an elected leader. Trump didn’t have congressional approval to do so.

    Illegalities abound: its unconstitutional (U.S. constitution requires congressional approval), and we did not get a U.N. resolution nor any other international agreement.

    It may have been the correct and “proportional” response, but the way it was done is troubling.

    Trump watched a TV show and impulsively changed his mind.

    Did Trump really not know about six other chemical attacks in Syria? Did he not know that an earlier attack in 2013 killed many more children (1400 people, hundreds of children)? Did he not know that Obama sought congressional approval in 2013 and got crickets in reply? Does Trump not have a headache from promoting an immigration plan that bans all Syrians while simultaneously claiming that he in charge now of punishing Assad?

    Russia’s response has been muted, (muted for Russia). They condemned the attack, and they temporarily suspended the deconfliction “hot line” arrangement with the U.S. Russia did not pull out of the deconfliction arrangement entirely and forever. Russian generals called the strike ineffective. Assad called the strike “naive.” And now I think we’re done with the blowhard responses.

  17. ajbjasus says

    @15. I suspected that might be the case – thanks. Just goes to show that the lack of rigour in how these reports are contructed gives massive scope for people to get hold of the wrong end of the stick.

  18. says

    Trump’s proposed budget cuts foreign aid, and that includes aid that takes care of the 5 to 6 million refugees that have fled war zones.

    Bombs? He’ll pay for those. Food, medical care, education and a more efficient immigration plan to bring refugees to the USA? No, he won’t pay for that. Think of all the beautiful babies in refugee camps in Jordan.

  19. says

    From House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi:

    […] The President’s action and any response demands that we immediately do our duty. Congress must live up to its Constitutional responsibility to debate an Authorization of the Use of Military Force against a sovereign nation.

    As heartbreaking as Assad’s chemical weapons attacks on his own people was, the crisis in Syria will not be resolved by one night of airstrikes. The killing will not stop without a comprehensive political solution to end the violence. The American people are owed a comprehensive strategy with clear objectives […]

    Cross posted from the Political Madness All the Time thread.

  20. cartomancer says

    Is ordering an attack on another sovereign nation without the support of congress something your president is allowed to do? Or is it illegal and grounds for impeachment?

  21. says

    As I pointed out over at stderr [ ] the US actually invaded Syria in November 2016, and has built an airbase in a convenient spot at the apex between Syria, Iraq, and Turkey.

    My interpretation of the Russian reaction to the missiles is that: of course they know the air base is there, now the Syrians are no longer going to agree to US air operations, “accidents” may happen when we beef up Syrian air defenses.
    I also predict that insurgents may find that its christmas, when they look in their stockings and find shiny new anti-tank guided missiles and portable surface to air missiles. Putin remembers what the US did to the USSR in Afghanistan and he’s like the Rembrandt of Paybacks.

    Now that they’ve made the grand gesture the best thing the US could do is declare victory and get the fuck out of there as fast as possible. “Thank you, thank you, buh bye, enjoy the sovereignty, buh bye.” But they won’t ever do that.

  22. robro says

    cartomancer — I believe the short answer is no, but it’s been routinely ignored for two centuries particularly if American lives (or assets) are threatened. Obviously that doesn’t apply in this case. Members of congress from both sides of the aisle are being critical of Trump for not seeking Congressional approval first. It might be noted that Congressional approval has largely been a symbolic gestured. As far as I know, no Congress has ever denied a presidential military action like this.

  23. Zeppelin says

    Indecisive Western interventionism is the worst fucking thing.

    First they do nothing except supply weapons to various rebel factions for, what, six years? Keeping the conflict going, but not enough for any of them to actually win. Then, once the country is in ruins and an entire generation of children is traumatised and malnourished, and it looks like the war might soon be over because the old government is winning…which is a pretty miserable outcome, but still better for regular people than another several years of war…then they intervene directly to weaken the government, but again not decisively enough to actually end the damn war swiftly, which might at least save some lives overall.

  24. robro says

    And now the wait for the report of collateral damage…in other words, the civilians killed by the attack. The Syrian’s are already claiming that 6 people were killed, but that could be military personnel at the base. There are disputed claims over the accuracy of the attack…the US Navy says only one of 59(!) missed it’s target, the Syrians and Russians say a lot more missed.

    Interesting timing of this action right after getting Bannon off the NSC.

    Lynna, OM — “Syria is country with an elected leader, the evil Assad.” I assume your use of “elected” here is in the most generous and general sense, and perhaps ironically. Sure they held an uncontested referendum vote. Someone winning by >90% suggests that the vote was perhaps not much more than a rubber stamp.

  25. robro says

    Oh, by the way…59 Tomahawk missiles cost about $100 million, not to mention other costs of the operation. Imagine what we could do with $100 million dollars to make the world a better place.

  26. brucegee1962 says

    MAYBE the message from the administration here is “If you want to kill a whole bunch of your own citizens, be sure to use bombs and bullets to do it, because if you use sarin gas we’ll slap you down hard.”

    And if that’s what this was all about, that might not even be a bad thing. The problem is that even getting across such a simple message in a unified voice seems to be beyond this administration. Some folks evidently just want a one-off, some want full-out regime change, and the prez just wants to look like a winner and can’t plan beyond his next golf game. So nobody has any idea of even a short-term plan, let alone the kind of strategic thinking that is needed before any sort of Middle East involvement.

  27. microraptor says

    Anyone else wondering if this was done as an excuse to draw attention away from domestic issues like the Trump-Russia investigation or Gorsuck’s nomination?

  28. says

    From Vox’s Dylan Matthews:

    […] Expanding refugee resettlement would certainly work, would carry little in the way of short-term financial costs, and that would likely provide a powerful boost to the US economy and drastically increase the living standards of Syrians who were able to relocate. Instead, Trump has sought to slash the number of Syrians allowed to come to the US — while dropping bombs on Syria itself. […]

    robro, at 26, yes, you’re right. That’s a good point. It was an election in name only, but since the results were recognized around the world, the fact that the “election” was unfair doesn’t weigh much in the legal balance. Thanks for pointing out the ludicrous nature of that “election.”

  29. says

    Reaction from Saudi Arabia:

    “A responsible source at the foreign ministry expressed the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s full support for the American military operations on military targets in Syria, which came as a response to the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons against innocent civilians,” read a statement from SPA, a state news agency.

    Jordan called Trump’s move “necessary and appropriate.”

    Reaction from Israel:

    “Israel fully and unequivocally supports the presidents decision and hopes the clear message will reverberate not only in Damascus but also in Tehran, Pyongyang and other places,” Netanyahu said.

    Reaction from Canada:

    “Canada fully supports the United States’ limited and focused action to degrade the Assad regime’s ability to launch chemical weapons attacks against innocent civilians, including many children,” Trudeau wrote in a statement. “President Assad’s use of chemical weapons and the crimes the Syrian regime has committed against its own people cannot be ignored. These gruesome attacks cannot be permitted to continue operating with impunity.”

    Reaction from the United Kingdom:

    “The U.K. government fully supports the U.S. action, which we believe was an appropriate response to the barbaric chemical weapons attack launched by the Syrian regime, and is intended to deter further attacks,” a Downing Street spokesperson said. U.K. Defense Secretary Sir Michael Fallon praised the United States for the “limited response,” saying it was “wholly appropriate.”

  30. dhabecker says

    Trump needed this diversion which makes everything we have been fed, suspicious. It feels good to retaliate so his poll numbers should spike.
    Logic might say that we should have bombed the Sandy Hook shooter’s home. Or bombed the manufacturing plant the gun came from. THAT would have sent a message!
    We summed up the carnage of WW2 by saying ‘never again’. It should have been; ‘you ain’t seen nothing yet’.

  31. jrkrideau says

    So the Donald has just committed a blatant act of war against Syria. A spectacular gesture that probably has accomplished nothing except pissing off the Syrians and Russians and Iranians even more than they already were.

    The only coherent policy I have been able to attribute to the USA in this ongoing horror-show is the policy of turning the Arab-speaking Middle-East into a conglomeration of failed states, terrorist groups and petty warlords. It seems to be doing well so far.

    The serious problem with getting rid of Assad is that there is no believable political alternative to him. Bingo, depose Assad and Syria becomes another Libya or Somalia or Afghanistan.
    While I don’t think Assad is up there with Omar Al Bashir of the Sudan as a total monster, , we would be well rid of him except without some figure head to hold Syria together we just get a continuation of the ongoing wars amongst the various “rebel” groups, more deaths, more refugees and more budding terrorists.

    This, to me, seems the reason Russia in in this débâcle. I doubt that Putin has a lot of affection for Assad but he does not want another failed state so close to his borders.

    Trump’s handlers need to keep him away from Fox News.

  32. says


    Anyone else wondering if this was done as an excuse to draw attention away from domestic issues like the Trump-Russia investigation or Gorsuck’s nomination?

    Yeah, me.

  33. says

    Within a week of being sworn in as president, Trump signed an executive order that included this:

    I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.

  34. says

    Comments concerning the issue of legality:

    […] “His failure to seek congressional approval is unlawful,” said Sen. Tim Kaine. “[T]he United States was not attacked. The President needs Congressional authorization for military action as required by the Constitution,” said Sen. Rand Paul. […]

    Slate link

    More detail from Joshua Keating’s article in Slate:

    […] even when presidents circumvent that check, they’re usually able to make some semblance of a case for the strike being necessary to protect U.S. interests. It’s very hard to make that case this time.

    These strikes are similar in some ways to the brief bombing of Libya ordered by Ronald Reagan without congressional authorization in 1986, but those were in response to a terrorist attack in Germany, blamed on Libya, in which two American soldiers were killed. There were no Americans killed in this week’s chemical weapons attack in Idlib. Yes, there are U.S. troops operating in Syria, but there’s not much evidence to suggest that Bashar al-Assad’s chemical weapons program poses a threat to them.

    Rather, this was an operation justified on the basis of upholding international norms. Trump made this clear in his speech Thursday night […]

    But the U.N. Security Council never authorized a military operation to punish Syria’s violation of the convention. […]

    Another precedent that’s likely to come up in discussions of this attack is Bill Clinton’s 1999 bombing of Serbia to deter aggression against Kosovo, a humanitarian intervention conducted without authorization from either the Security Council or Congress. But that at least had the authorization of NATO.

    Whether the U.N. or NATO’s approval can substitute for congressional authorization is a controversial notion anyway, not that Trump, who has expressed contempt for these bodies, would actually seek it. […]

    From the New York Times, September 8, 2013:

    In recent weeks, Administration lawyers decided that it was within Mr. Obama’s constitutional authority to carry out a strike on Syria as well, even without permission from Congress or the Security Council, because of the “important national interests” of limiting regional instability and of enforcing the norm against using chemical weapons.

    From Joshua Keating:

    […] Trump has now essentially taken the authority that the Obama White House believed it had, but chose not to use, and run with it.

    As less a legal than political matter, it’s also worth considering that the U.S. has already been bombing Syrian territory since 2014. There’s a difference, of course: These strikes are against ISIS and justified—somewhat dubiously—under the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force against terrorists.

    Sturdy and flexible as that AUMF has been over the years, it would probably be a step too far to apply it to attacking Assad’s military. […]

    Questions of executive power in war are often more a question of political precedent than written law, and the way the previous administration conducted operations in countries including Pakistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia helped normalize the notion that limited airstrikes are not “real” war. Most Americans probably won’t see a massive distinction between bombing one set of bad guys in Syria or another, unless this evolves into something much larger and more dangerous.

  35. robro says

    It is amusing how the Alt-Right clique is appalled at Trump’s actions, right in step-with Russia. All-in-all the Right Wing bloc seems quite fragmented: Alt-Right, Freedom Caucus, Tea Party, main stream Republicans, the Trump clan, the Wall Street cabal, and Religious Wackos, and on and on. Emphasis on the seems part, because I don’t trust appearances very much.

    Microraptor @ #29

    Anyone else wondering if this was done as an excuse to draw attention away from domestic issues like the Trump-Russia investigation or Gorsuck’s nomination?

    Of course, and a host of other flubs, like AHCA and the travel bans. At the same time, drive up gas prices, destabilize markets, and so on. I don’t put anything past these guys. Much like Assad, they really don’t give a shit who gets hurt as long as they gain and hold power, and the wealth that comes with it.

    I realize this is drifting into irrational conspiracy theories, but a war between Putin and Trump over Syria might be right up the oligarchies ally. I’m reminded of 1984 almost every day.

  36. robro says

    Creepnovich said…

    “Sources telling me U.S. attack in Syria planned for tonight, we must stop! #NoMoreWar,” at 7:40 pm Eastern time, an hour and a half before NBC News broke the news of the airstrike.

    Hmmm…who could those “sources” be telling this guy confidential security information before the strikes began, much less before the story broke. According to the NYT report the first missiles struck around 8:30pm Eastern time. (Al Jazeera reported that the strikes started at 3:45 am Friday morning Syrian time, which is just a few minutes later.) Clearly he was pre-warned, which he admits when he says “planned for tonight.”

    By the way, the Wikipedia article says that Trump was acting under the War Powers Act of 1973 and that the administration briefed “over 24 members of Congress…at the time.” Also, several foreign countries were notified including Canada, Australia, and Russia.

  37. wzrd1 says

    Meanwhile, Trump has sent a lot of troops into Syria and Iraq, increasing the chances of a direct conflict with Russia.
    Where nothing could possibly go wrong. Go wrong. Go wrong…

    Oh well, maybe I’ll be on shift with that cop that is one of the guards for my building, who was a Bernie supporter and voted for Trump, rather than for Hillary, just as the missiles begin detonating around Barksdale AFB.
    “Still hoping that he’ll do better, he’s his better”.

  38. Pierce R. Butler says

    According to this piece from Agence France Press (at Raw Story), “Source: Syria was warned of impending attack ‘hours’ before US missile strike”.

    And <a href="this report" (a Raw Story writer citing a Reuters report) claims "Warplanes from Syrian base hit by US just carried out airstrikes in Homs".

    So far, it looks like the whole thing adds up to militarily meaningless political theater, plus the usual collateral damage and ominous implications. On the exact 100th anniversary of the US hurling itself into another already-ongoing gigantic overseas bloodbath…

  39. KG says

    Until now, the West’s policies in the Middle East were driven by short-term, short-sighted selfishness.
    Now it’s only short-term and short-sighted.
    Not that muchAbsolutely nothing has changed. – rietpluim@5


    Anyone else wondering if this was done as an excuse to draw attention away from domestic issues like the Trump-Russia investigation or Gorsuck’s nomination? – microraptor@29

    Yes, in addition to Caine@34, robro@39, me. How successful it has been is evident even on this thread (ajbjasus@1, starfleetdude@8). $100,000,000 (the reported cost of the cruise missiles) could have saved a considerable number of “beautiful babies”.

  40. KG says

    On the exact 100th anniversary of the US hurling itself into another already-ongoing gigantic overseas bloodbath… – Pierce R. Butler@43

    But the USA has already been directly involved in Syria, with “special forces” boots on the ground and huge numbers of airstrikes. And the intervention in WWI was prompted by Germany resuming unrestricted submarine warfare – seriously interfering with American naval commerce – and encouraging Mexico to attack the USA (the Zimmerman telegram).

  41. wzrd1 says

    Interestingly, the base was evacuated of personnel and equipment before the missile strike, indicating that the Syrian government was warned.

    So, who told the Russians? The Traitor in Chief or one of his traitorous comrades?