• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump announces U.S. military strikes in Syria

Geoist said:
Actually, terrorist groups have used chemical weapons since 9/11.

So you think the stories of ISIS fighting in Iraq and Syria are false?
Click to expand...

Isolated incidents are hardly the same as any sort of coherent “terrorist chemical weapons program”

We’ve also bombed ISIS’ labs into rubble and captured the main one more than a year ago.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Isolated incidents are hardly the same as any sort of coherent “terrorist chemical weapons program”

We’ve also bombed ISIS’ labs into rubble and captured the main one more than a year ago.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, this was one bomb and possibly the first in over a year... and yet those don’t qualify as ‘isolated incidents?’

And taking out their labs doesn’t mean all weapons have been eliminated.
 
Geoist said:
As I understand it, this was one bomb and possibly the first in over a year... and yet those don’t qualify as ‘isolated incidents?’

And taking out their labs doesn’t mean all weapons have been eliminated.
Click to expand...

It means their program is disrupted.
 
Geoist said:
Lol, President Tweets-A-Lot gave them a good headstart on moving anything of value.
Click to expand...

The lab infrastructure was not really mobile. In this case Trump's lack of any sense of operational security probably did not cost much.
 
Jack Hays said:
The lab infrastructure was not really mobile. In this case Trump's lack of any sense of operational security probably did not cost much.
Click to expand...

Lab infrastructure may not be mobile, but many important materials probably were.
 
Geoist said:
Lab infrastructure may not be mobile, but many important materials probably were.
Click to expand...

Doubtful. And in any case, the Syrians' protective strategy was based on the lab's civilian cover, not on concealment.
 
Jack Hays said:
Doubtful. And in any case, the Syrians' protective strategy was based on the lab's civilian cover, not on concealment.
Click to expand...

Strikes apparently didn't work the first time around... do we have any reason to believe they worked this time?
 
Geoist said:
Strikes apparently didn't work the first time around... do we have any reason to believe they worked this time?
Click to expand...

Different targets, different objectives. Previous strike aimed at tactical capability and depended on bending Syrian will to be effective. That capability was replaceable. This time the target was strategic, removing the means to continue the program. Downside is any already-produced chemical weapons may remain available to the regime.
 
Jack Hays said:
Different targets, different objectives. Previous strike aimed at tactical capability and depended on bending Syrian will to be effective. That capability was replaceable.
Click to expand...

I do believe they were fully capable within 24 hours of that strike. Great use of taxpayer dollars! :peace
 
Geoist said:
I do believe they were fully capable within 24 hours of that strike. Great use of taxpayer dollars! :peace
Click to expand...

Maybe yes, maybe no. There is no doubt the strategic base of the program was destroyed. Trump's pinprick strategy is merely a continuation of Obama's approach, and really amounts to little more than virtue signaling. If it saves some lives that's not a bad thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom