Trump launches military strike against Syria

[Fishking]

So it's the US's fault. :roll:

Do you have a different and more robust take on that? Please, by all means, expound on your "It's the reporting crew's fault" theory.

 

[American]

Do you have a different and more robust take on that? Please, by all means, expound on your "It's the reporting crew's fault" theory.

You did blame the US selling weapons as the reason the kid is starving. I just wonder if the crew getting the sappy photo did anything to help it.

 

[j-mac]

I knew that.

Ok

Does that mean that Republicans are conservatives and therefore all they do is good for the country?

Depends...Seems as though "what is good for the country" is quite subjective....I think the outcome of showing that America will not stand for gassing children is a good thing.

I'd argue that they're just as much inclined to do what is good for the party as the Democrats are.

Well...pretty easy to determine that isn't it?

It's not a matter of meeting with Congress to inform them. It's a matter of getting Congressional approval or not. Obama opted to go for Congressional approval, which was denied. Now, Obama is being vilified for not having acted after his ill advised "red line in the sand" statement. Trump opted to go it alone. Were Trump a Democrat, the Republicans would have screamed bloody murder over him bypassing Congress. As it is, it's the Democrats who are second guessing the attack in Syria.

What? You mean that people are playing politics with this strike? I am shocked....:mrgreen:

Neither side is looking at the advisability of the attack itself, of the likely outcomes, of how justifiable the attack was or wasn't, they're simply looking for ammunition to throw at the other side.

Again politics...But, I am NOT for a weak, indecisive America...I believe that America is at its best when they act with confidence to a clear war crime....Do we have to wait until Assad, and Putin kill how many? 1 million? 2 million? How many babies need to flopping around like fish on the ground before we look for more than a strongly worded letter?

It's high time we learned that America is one team, that neither political party has the good of the country at heart.

You can say lots about Donald Trump, but to insinuate that he didn't act in US interests, and humanitarian interests is not one of them...

Now this is old, and I realize it is about NK, but you get the message...

 

[matchlight]

It's not a matter of meeting with Congress to inform them. It's a matter of getting Congressional approval or not. Obama opted to go for Congressional approval, which was denied. Now, Obama is being vilified for not having acted after his ill advised "red line in the sand" statement.

Malarkey. President Obama had wagged his scrawny finger and warned that Assad would be crossing a red line by using chemical weapons. You are trying to make his inability to get Congress to approve a strike on Syria's chemical weapons facilities an excuse for his inaction, when the plain fact is that Obama simply lacked the grit needed to back up his hollow threat. And yet this same twit, when less grit was needed to order military action, blithely ignored Congress and launched his personal "lead-from-behind" war to oust Khaddafi in Libya. The strike which opened that war, incidentally, used about twice as many Tomahawks as President Trump used against the Syrian airbase.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Malarkey. President Obama had wagged his scrawny finger and warned that Assad would be crossing a red line by using chemical weapons. You are trying to make his inability to get Congress to approve a strike on Syria's chemical weapons facilities an excuse for his inaction, when the plain fact is that Obama simply lacked the grit needed to back up his hollow threat. And yet this same twit, when less grit was needed to order military action, blithely ignored Congress and launched his personal "lead-from-behind" war to oust Khaddafi in Libya. The strike which opened that war, incidentally, used about twice as many Tomahawks as President Trump used against the Syrian airbase.

And, had Obama launched an attack on Syria's chemical weapons at that time, the Republican partisans would have screamed that he blithely ignored Congress and launched his personal "lead-from-behind" war.

You know it, I know it, and anyone who has been following recent events knows it. A Democrat can do nothing right, according to the Republican cheerleaders. A Republican can do nothing right according tot the Democratic cheerleaders. That's the only reason we're hearing about how terrible it was for Trump to have bypassed Congress and authorized an attack in Syria.

When the shoe was on the other foot, Trump was one of the cheerleaders telling Obama why he shouldn't launch just the sort of attach that he, himself ordered when he was in power. Stupid partisanship at its finest.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Obama is not president.

Trump did not even attempt to request/gain the assent of Congress in waging [open ended] war on Syria.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Ok



Depends...Seems as though "what is good for the country" is quite subjective....I think the outcome of showing that America will not stand for gassing children is a good thing.

Agreed, on both counts.

Well...pretty easy to determine that isn't it?

It was quite easy for me to determine it, yes.

What? You mean that people are playing politics with this strike? I am shocked....:mrgreen:

Oh, yes, me too.

Again politics...But, I am NOT for a weak, indecisive America...I believe that America is at its best when they act with confidence to a clear war crime....Do we have to wait until Assad, and Putin kill how many? 1 million? 2 million? How many babies need to flopping around like fish on the ground before we look for more than a strongly worded letter?



You can say lots about Donald Trump, but to insinuate that he didn't act in US interests, and humanitarian interests is not one of them...

Oh, I've already said he did the right thing.

Of course, when Obama was in power it wouldn't have been the right thing, according to Trump's tweets.

Now this is old, and I realize it is about NK, but you get the message...

The video won't play.

 

[j-mac]

Obama is not president.

Trump did not even attempt to request/gain the assent of Congress in waging [open ended] war on Syria.

Trump did not "wage an open ended war on Syria"... Period. That was simply a response to Assad's use of WMD on innocent people including children. A one off strike. Your mischaracterization of the event is typical of liberal reaction to anything this administration does....If Trump had NOT acted, then you'd be in here saying that Trump had no guts, and slamming him for not responding to chemical strikes that killed children...

 

[j-mac]

Agreed, on both counts.

Good.

It was quite easy for me to determine it, yes.

Happy for you.

Oh, yes, me too.

Then, I don't understand...You are decrying that politics is being used in this event, but then say it isn't unforeseeable....So, what then? Are you saying that Republican's should cede political arguments to democrats so that you will approve? what?

Oh, I've already said he did the right thing.

Ok then, why are you arguing in the same breath that it was wrong?

Of course, when Obama was in power it wouldn't have been the right thing, according to Trump's tweets.

Maybe you missed the part where Trump said himself that after viewing the pictures of what happened with that strike on civilians using nerve agent, that it had 'changed his mind.'

The video won't play.

Hmmmm, that's odd....Just go to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIPSvIz9NDs and it should be fine....Pretty funny.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Good.



Happy for you.



Then, I don't understand...You are decrying that politics is being used in this event, but then say it isn't unforeseeable....So, what then? Are you saying that Republican's should cede political arguments to democrats so that you will approve? what?

How about that the right thing to do doesn't change with the letter after the POTUS' name? Does that make any sense?

Ok then, why are you arguing in the same breath that it was wrong?

Never did I say it was wrong. I said that Trump, when he wasn't in power, said it was wrong.

Maybe you missed the part where Trump said himself that after viewing the pictures of what happened with that strike on civilians using nerve agent, that it had 'changed his mind.'

What changed his mind wasn't viewing the pictures, but seeing who was in power.

Hmmmm, that's odd....Just go to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIPSvIz9NDs and it should be fine....Pretty funny.

OK, I'll try that.

 

[j-mac]

How about that the right thing to do doesn't change with the letter after the POTUS' name? Does that make any sense?

Precedent's were set long before he took office....Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Never did I say it was wrong. I said that Trump, when he wasn't in power, said it was wrong.

And his advisors told him most likely that he could do it, and he did....It was the right call, and you even agree.

What changed his mind wasn't viewing the pictures, but seeing who was in power.

Oh, you think his action was rash? Look at it this way...He most likely had many options on the table, everything from do nothing, all the way to invasion....He chose to do something very limited...I'd say, appropriate. Maybe next time (if there is one) we could tell his advisors to add "Call Ditto" and ask his opinion before they decide?

OK, I'll try that.

Ok, I think you'll get a chuckle.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Our exchange began with your reply to my #700, which was about the Geneva Conventions. You subsequently turned the topic to the efficacy of US efforts, and my #763 merely responded to the cases you raised.

Now you're debating the debate. You STILL HAVE NOT answered ONE of my questions regarding which wars you considered a success....and YOU turn around and accuse me of deflection!


You're learned well from the master con man.


Suffice it to say I know you're full of **** and run away when you're beaten...just like Trump.

 

[Jack Hays]

You STILL HAVE NOT answered ONE of my questions regarding which wars you considered a success..

My #763 was a full answer. Perhaps you missed it in your haste to be insulting.

 

[Jack Hays]

Why Assad Used Chemical Weapons
Mohamad Bazzi, Reuters

 

[Jack Hays]

Recklessness Is Not a Policy
Richard Cohen, New York Daily News

". . . Assad had it coming. Even better, Trump reversed Barack Obama's shameful retreat from the brink back in 2012, when he warned Assad that the use of chemical weapons would cross a "red line" and then, a year later, when WMD were used, shockingly, said oh, never mind. Even before that, Obama had refused to intervene in the Syrian civil war when it might have mattered. American inaction allowed the war to become a humanitarian catastrophe. Roughly 400,000 have died, and half the country has been displaced. Europe still reels from a tsunami of refugees clamoring to get in. . . . "

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

The bottom line is Trump would not be in this situation except for the fact that Putin played Obama for a fool. Obama and the democrats nearly broke their arms patting themselves on the back over the great deal made with Russia to remove all those chemical weapons. Obama drew the line in the sand and Trump just enforced the policy of the previous president. Obama was played for a fool by Putin and Assad who never removed the chemical weapons. Trump took office and Putin put him to the test. Trump made it clear he would use our military to enforce the line Obama drew in the sand. Now Putin and Assad have to rethink their situation now that we have a strong leader back in the White House.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Precedent's were set long before he took office....Don't hate the player, hate the game.



And his advisors told him most likely that he could do it, and he did....It was the right call, and you even agree.



Oh, you think his action was rash? Look at it this way...He most likely had many options on the table, everything from do nothing, all the way to invasion....He chose to do something very limited...I'd say, appropriate. Maybe next time (if there is one) we could tell his advisors to add "Call Ditto" and ask his opinion before they decide?



Ok, I think you'll get a chuckle.

I think that would be a great idea. I'd give him the real best option, partisanship and ideology aside.

 

[vesper]

No, not really. US didn't have any involvement with the Middle East after Barbary Wars. Didn't shape the Middle East and didn't give a **** about it. US was worried about UK, Westward expansion, Monroe Doctrine and Slave trade.

The U.S certainly reshaped things during the early part of the 19th century in that area of the world. And for you to say they "didn't give a **** about it" is false because on the first attempt to strike treaties with these countries that sponsored piracy failed. We were a young nation without an Navy. These countries held American prisoners of every U.S. ship they pirated not to mention the ship. It was the second response that came with a fleet from our new found Navy and Marines fighting on the ground that was the game changer. Our Navy/Marines fighting on the ground and captured their ships and their men which led to bartering an exchange for prisoners. And later treaties with these countries. Also this proves the well established merchant trade in the U.S. with countries in the Middle East or Near East during that time period. Yes the Brits and French were the most prominent influencial outsiders in the area but there was a new kid on the block that meant business.

So you have no right to say we had no influence for that is false. It wasn't near as great as the Brits and the French.....but in the early days of this country we made our mark. We fought for our interests in the region including the captured Americans living in prison at that time in those countries and we even negotiated for the release of European prisoners at that time..

Our influence remained limited in the ME for most of the 19th century but that in no way equates to what you claim. During WWI our influence increased but by that time the French and the Brits had pretty much colonized much of the countries and created a lot of forked up situations. Have you noticed it's always someone in Europe that is the cause of a world war? Sy

It was the French occupation of Syria that eventually gave the people in Syria the Assad family to rule over them. The French didn't much care for the Sunnis even though they were the majority of people living in the land. Instead the French started building the army of Syria with Alawites, an offshoot of Shia Muslims. It was a minority sect living in the land. In fact the number of Christians living in the land at that time was probably higher. Eventually after the military was overwhelmingly Alawite, the military took power and the next leader of Syria became the first Assad, ----Hafez_al-Assad member of the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party. Hafez an Alawite, didn't have any love for Sunnis either as protests broke out during his reign and he used the military to kill 30,000 of his own people because they opposed dear Hafez. Hafez also liked having relationships with terrorist groups in that day. He used them to stir the pot among the many factions living in Syria to deflect criticism from him and point to the latest shining problem evolving. His son Bashar is like his daddy tenfold. He has ordered the killing of 500,000 of his own people and has invited terrorist groups into his country and even allows some of them to have headquarters in Damascus. He even mentions these terrorist groups and praises them in his public speeches.

And now because of his actions it has caused the biggest humanitarian crisis in my lifetime. Two million + of Syrians are living in Jordan in refugee camps wanting to go back home.
The other three million have been dispersed around the globe. This dictator who has used multiple times chemical weapons on his own people, and barrel bombs them daily with the aid of Russia and funding from Iran and Iran's funding in the terrorist groups that Assad welcomed into his country..... he needs to be tried for war crimes and removed from power. Because his actions has destabilized the entire world.

 

[akyron]

He invasion of Iraq and overthrow of Saddam destabilized the entire M.E. He was warned of that outcome and ignored it like he ignored the warnings of 911. That's why he is so quiet now, he is living with those harsh realities.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/townha...ountry-isis-nearly-defeated-n2304719?amp=true

"During an interview with Fox News on Sunday, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi slammed Barack Obama for his failure to handle ISIS and predicted that Iraq will defeat the Islamic terror group “within weeks."

“He just wanted just to forget Iraq,” the prime minister said of Obama's strategy during the Arab spring. “I mean, slaughtering people. There was a lot of pressure on President Obama."

Nonetheless, al-Abadi did say that Iraqi forces are defeating ISIS, possibly removing the terror group completely within a few weeks.

“We are defeating them militarily,” he said. “As a terrorist organization … they will try. So that's where we need the efforts of others. Flush them out of Syria and other places.”"

There were some pricey well made US bases Obama walked away from there.

 

[braindrain]

Very well said.

Though...sadly...few will probably agree with you.

That's because it his post is little more then the anti-American BS that PeteEU is well known for.

 

[iguanaman]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/townha...ountry-isis-nearly-defeated-n2304719?amp=true

"During an interview with Fox News on Sunday, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi slammed Barack Obama for his failure to handle ISIS and predicted that Iraq will defeat the Islamic terror group “within weeks."

“He just wanted just to forget Iraq,” the prime minister said of Obama's strategy during the Arab spring. “I mean, slaughtering people. There was a lot of pressure on President Obama."

Nonetheless, al-Abadi did say that Iraqi forces are defeating ISIS, possibly removing the terror group completely within a few weeks.

“We are defeating them militarily,” he said. “As a terrorist organization … they will try. So that's where we need the efforts of others. Flush them out of Syria and other places.”"

There were some pricey well made US bases Obama walked away from there.

LOL Not to mention the most expensive US Embassy ever built. Bush clearly wanted to stay forever....until he was forced to sign an agreement to remove all troops in 2 years. That sort of put a damper on that. I guess we weren't that popular then..
Maliki also said he wanted some troops to remain then refused to give our soldiers immunity from local prosecution. That was the deal breaker. I guess he didn't want us looking over his shoulder while he sent hit squads into Sunni areas in the dead of night. Bush really picked a"winner" with Maliki. The Terrorist/President that spent more time in Tehran than Baghdad.
I could not be prouder to see the Iraqi's stepping up to save their own country. Maybe now they will stop blowing it up like they were doing when we were there. That will be Obama's victory and something Bush could never have achieved EVEN if we had stayed in Iraq forever.

 

[braindrain]

Your monopoly on the truth exists only in your imagination. For all anyone here knows, you are the one who is in denial and can only be convinced of what you already believe to be true. If you believe a dictator who uses nerve gas to murder children in his own country is a wonderful person, fine by me.

Seeing as he thinks nukes were used to bring down the twin towers Sandy Hook was a fake along with believing virtually every other crackpot conspiracy out there I would say Thoreau has about the weakest grasp on reality of anyone I have ever met.

 

[Tangmo]

The bombardment is an instance of how the US Navy can operate effectively and instantly. Two destroyers of US Forces Europe/Mediterranean Sixth Fleet fired off 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles between 'em, USS Ross DDG 71 and USS Porter DDG 78.

It is a message not only to Assad, but a larger statement to Russia, CCP Dynasty in Beijing, to the Ayatollahs in Iran. And to the fanboyz of each of 'em.


USS Ross DDG 71 guided missile destroyer launches Tomahawk cruise missiles against Syrian air base April 8.

Cmdr. Andria L. Slough, commanding officer of the guided-missile destroyer USS Porter (DDG 78), receives a telephone call from President Donald J. Trump on April 9, 2017. US Navy Photo

https://news.usni.org/2017/04/11/de...wk-strike-uss-ross-remains-station#more-25133


The Czarist-Chekist Putin is not ten feet tall. He's not even six feet tall.