U.S. Launches Millitary Strike Against Syria (merged)

[05_never_again]

I can only guess he is allowing the generals to do whatever they want. He would be very easy to topple if the military turned on him.

And given that he is still in the midst of fighting a civil war, that might still be a possibility. Early in the war, much of the conflict centered around the Syrian Armed Forces and ex-Syrian forces who defected.

 

[volinbham]

Few of trains of thought:

1. He's bat**** crazy and thinks it's the only way he can get rid of some of his opposition. (Saddam option #1)

2. He's bat**** crazy and uses it as a weapon of terror to keep the opposition from going against his government. (Saddam Option #2)

3. He's bat**** crazy and thinks he can do anything with the Russians backing him. (Get out of jail free card option)

4. He's not bat**** crazy, but a commander of his is bat**** crazy and used the weapons without approval. (extremely unlikely) However, being that he declared all weapons were removed some years ago, he would be shown to have lied about the matter. (I really wish I could say "it wasn't me!" but they will know I was lying and that will backfire bigly on me Option)

Some combo plus he may be in "this is going to end badly for me soon so F'it; I'm going out with a blaze of glory"

Could be he thinks by drawing a reaction Iran may step up to help him more. Some analysts were saying Putin would rather not have to defend Assad and perhaps Russia isn't trying that hard anymore; Assad needs help to stay in power - provoking a reaction from the Great Satan may help motivate Iran to ramp it up.

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

out of curiosity, can someone offer a speculative reason as to why they think Assad would use chemical weapons on his people? And I'm not being sarcastic, I'd just like to hear opinions on this.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-23927399

He killed hundreds with chemicals in 2013. Remember the red line in the sand that Obama mentioned Assad crossed and then did nothing?

 

[McDad]

So exactly why did Trump change his mind? Was it the video of the kids? If so, that opens a whole can of worms. If not, then what was it that made him change his mind? With the limited knowledge I have, I think he probably made the right decision. Again, I'm just curious about the mechanics of such an abrupt change of mind.

On days where the Sun rises in the East, Trump's habit is to change abruptly.

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

https://www.google.com/amp/www.vox....-attack-idlib-chemical-weapons-khan-sheikhoun

And that is from what I mentioned earlier to OBV. Once they got the civilians to the hospital Syrian jets came back through and bombed the hospital that was treating them a few days ago when all this happened.

 

[volinbham]

So exactly why did Trump change his mind? Was it the video of the kids? If so, that opens a whole can of worms. If not, then what was it that made him change his mind? With the limited knowledge I have, I think he probably made the right decision. Again, I'm just curious about the mechanics of such an abrupt change of mind.

My speculation:

1. He never really made up his mind - it was just yammering criticism of Obama.

2. He generally believes we shouldn't be in the business of regime change (most agree with that) so he backed off US policy (ineffective) of "Assad must go"

3. This reaction is still not regime change - it's a proportionate response to a violation the entire world is against.

4. The realities of the situation hit hard with this particular atrocity - serves to clarify the thinking.

5. His advisors (the legit ones) helped him understand this was a big f'n deal.

 

[Lurkerin]

Why does any Dictator do harm? Ruling elite do not consider the "others", Period. See Iraq, Venezuela, etc.

 

[volinbham]

It's hypocrisy, but honestly would you want your President to make a decision based on what he said in a Tweet 4 years ago? Or would you prefer he make the best decision for the situation at the time regardless if it shows him to by hypocritical?

why is this so hard to understand?

 

[05_never_again]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-23927399

He killed hundreds with chemicals in 2013. Remember the red line in the sand that Obama mentioned Assad crossed and then did nothing?

It is widely disputed and unclear who carried out that attack. That one was carried out with surface-to-surface rockets (unlike this one, which was carried out with jets) and at a time in the conflict where rebels would have had access to Syrian chemical weapons sites (they were doing better in the war at that point in time). It seems entirely possible to me that the 2013 Ghouta attack was carried out by the rebels.

There is a much better argument for saying that attack was a false flag than this most recent one. If I remember correctly, that attack came mere days after Obama made his "red line" declaration, and many people thought the timing of that was curious.

 

[volinbham]

SIAP - heard this morning that while it took about 30 minutes to launch all 59 CMs the early ones basically circled the site in a holding pattern until all of them got there then they all hit the target at roughly the same time.

Dang

 

[05_never_again]

SIAP - heard this morning that while it took about 30 minutes to launch all 59 CMs the early ones basically circled the site in a holding pattern until all of them got there then they all hit the target at roughly the same time.

Dang

Wow.

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

SIAP - heard this morning that while it took about 30 minutes to launch all 59 CMs the early ones basically circled the site in a holding pattern until all of them got there then they all hit the target at roughly the same time.

Dang

Holy chit. Could you imagine what that looked like to the syrian army on the ground? Lol

 

[lawgator1]

If you believe that he wanted to or was ever going to do what Trump just ordered, you are further gone than I originally thought.

Obama had the ship in place and was going to use tomahawk missiles to hit an air base. The GOP Congress, and Trump, demanded he go through Congress first. He did. Congress would not authorize.

 

[volinbham]

Obama had the ship in place and was going to use tomahawk missiles to hit an air base. The GOP Congress, and Trump, demanded he go through Congress first. He did. Congress would not authorize.

Going through Congress was an out for Obama; he wasn't constrained by them.

He didn't in Libya, He didn't with Bergdahl, plenty of other times he was supposed to go through Congress but didn't.

 

[hog88]

Obama had the ship in place and was going to use tomahawk missiles to hit an air base. The GOP Congress, and Trump, demanded he go through Congress first. He did. Congress would not authorize.

We always have a ship in place there.

 

[volfanjustin]

“We struck a deal where we got 100 percent of the chemical weapons out,” -John Kerry 2014

During an interview this past January with National Public Radio, former National Security Adviser Rice touted the “success” in Syria, in striking a deal with Russia's help that resulted in the prior administration dropping the threat of military action.

lol:

 

[OuterBanksVol]

From WaPo:

"I don’t believe for a minute that Trump, a man who has never demonstrated an iota of human empathy, actually decided to launch this attack because he was so moved by the thought of children being killed. I suspect it had much more to do with his desire to look strong and, above all, do something different from what Obama did. Nevertheless, the attack has reinforced the chemical weapons taboo. That in itself isn’t a bad thing for the world at large, but it doesn’t achieve very much. It would not be at all unreasonable for Assad to conclude that as long as he keeps killing civilians only with conventional weapons (and executing them by the thousands in his prisons), he’s free to carry on.

And that’s just about the best-case scenario that will emerge from this U.S. attack. If Assad doesn’t use any more chemical weapons, will we consider that a victory?"

 

[BearCat204]

Holy chit. Could you imagine what that looked like to the syrian army on the ground? Lol

They would have never seen them until they were all on target

 

[volinbham]

Obama had the ship in place and was going to use tomahawk missiles to hit an air base. The GOP Congress, and Trump, demanded he go through Congress first. He did. Congress would not authorize.

please

WASHINGTON — President Obama abruptly changed course on Saturday and postponed a military strike against the Syrian government in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack so he could seek authorization first from a deeply skeptical Congress.

He wasn't bound to do this; had chosen not to before and did after this

Mr. Obama overruled the advice of many of his aides who worried about just such a defeat, and Republican Congressional officials said Saturday that if a vote were taken immediately, the Republican-controlled House would not support action. Interviews with more than a dozen members of Congress made clear that the situation was volatile even in the Senate, where Democrats have a majority.

His aides said don't do it

“Obama hasn’t got a chance to win this vote if he can’t win the majority of his own party, and I doubt he can,” Representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma, a leading Republican, said in an interview. “Democrats have been conspicuously silent. Just about his only support is coming from Republicans. He is a war president without a war party.”

His own party wouldn't support him - this wasn't a GOP obstruction

Still, White House officials indicated that Mr. Obama might still authorize force even if Congress rejected it.

He reserved the right to act without Congress.

As Syrian forces braced for attack, the president’s decision effectively put it off for more than a week, since Congress is not due back in Washington until Sept. 9. Mr. Obama did not push for Congress to come back sooner, and House leaders opted to keep to their schedule.

Wonder why he didn't want them back and in action?

The move also means that the period of vacillation before a strike will extend until after Mr. Obama travels to St. Petersburg, Russia, for a summit meeting of the Group of 20 nations, a session that now seems certain to be dominated by the question of what to do about Syria.

delay, delay, delay

Although Mr. Obama said as a candidate that a president has no power to launch a military attack except to stop “an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” he acted unilaterally in Libya in 2011 and had no plans to act differently in Syria this time. But he found it much harder to proceed alone, given the British vote and polls showing that the vast majority of Americans want Congress to decide.

There you have it. He could do it, he planned to do it but then realized it would hurt him politically so he sorta went to Congress but he didn't want an answer right away.

It was political cover - nothing more, nothing less.

 

[volinbham]

From WaPo:

"I don’t believe for a minute that Trump, a man who has never demonstrated an iota of human empathy, actually decided to launch this attack because he was so moved by the thought of children being killed. I suspect it had much more to do with his desire to look strong and, above all, do something different from what Obama did. Nevertheless, the attack has reinforced the chemical weapons taboo. That in itself isn’t a bad thing for the world at large, but it doesn’t achieve very much. It would not be at all unreasonable for Assad to conclude that as long as he keeps killing civilians only with conventional weapons (and executing them by the thousands in his prisons), he’s free to carry on.

And that’s just about the best-case scenario that will emerge from this U.S. attack. If Assad doesn’t use any more chemical weapons, will we consider that a victory?"

My bolded shows this person (whoever it is) is in no way an objective observer.

On the bolded from your post - wasn't that the standard for Obama? They claimed we stopped chemical weapons but the killings went on unabated.

 

[hog88]

From WaPo:

"I don’t believe for a minute that Trump, a man who has never demonstrated an iota of human empathy, actually decided to launch this attack because he was so moved by the thought of children being killed. I suspect it had much more to do with his desire to look strong and, above all, do something different from what Obama did. Nevertheless, the attack has reinforced the chemical weapons taboo. That in itself isn’t a bad thing for the world at large, but it doesn’t achieve very much. It would not be at all unreasonable for Assad to conclude that as long as he keeps killing civilians only with conventional weapons (and executing them by the thousands in his prisons), he’s free to carry on.

And that’s just about the best-case scenario that will emerge from this U.S. attack. If Assad doesn’t use any more chemical weapons, will we consider that a victory?"

Sounds like "I have to have something to ***** about".

 

[lawgator1]

Trump in 2013:

The President must get Congressional approval before attacking Syria-big mistake if he does not!

If the U.S. attacks Syria and hits the wrong targets, killing civilians, there will be worldwide hell to pay. Stay away and fix broken U.S.

What I am saying is stay out of Syria.

Paul Ryan said that the same strike ordered by Trump, when planned by Obama, "cannot achieve its stated objectives" and could make things worse.


Jason Chaffetz sent out a tweet Thursday night saying "God bless the USA!" When Obama proposed the same action, he said he could not support it because he saw "no clear and present danger" to the US justifying use of force.

Marsha Blackburn said in 2013 that she opposed the same thing Trump just did. After Trump acted, she retweeted his message that "no child should ever suffer such horror."

Marco Rubio has been on tv vigorously supporting what Trump did. When Obama planned it in 2013, he said

“I have long argued forcefully for engagement in empowering the Syrian people, I have never supported the use of U.S. military force in the conflict.”

Orrin Hatch gave Trumps' actions an "amen," but in 2013 said he opposed the very same action by Obama.


Pete Olson praised Trump for what he did. In 2013, when the same plan was in place by Obama, he cited his experience as a Navy veteran to oppose the exact same measure.


Robert Aderholt has approved of Trump's actions. In 2013, he said he opposed the same thing under Obama because he was worried that not enough had been done to seek a diplomatic solution on the use of chemical weapons.


Larry Buchson, in 2013 said he had not met a single person "who believes we should fire missiles into Syria." Now he's all for it, under Trump.
Cory Garnder. In 2013, Gardner expressed “skepticism” of striking Syria and argued that he didn’t see “a compelling and vital” national interest in such an attack. On Thursday evening, he called Trump’s strike against Syria a “long-overdue action.”

While the GOP does not have a unilateral lock on hypocrisy, when it comes to Trump versus Obama ....

 

[Grand Vol]

Well, I see LG was butthurt enough to actually start another thread.

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

They would have never seen them until they were all on target

I thought they were low flying. I remember during shock and awe people were filming them flying to Iraq and they looked a couple hundred feet off the ground.

 

[OuterBanksVol]

Come on man, this is the era of Trumpism. These are all "alternative facts". What you "say" means nothing! Just do and say whatever you want, whenever you want, to serve your own purposes.

It's as if New Jersey now rules the world.