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

[luthervol]

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.

Good answer. Makes sense.

 

[RikidyBones]

I find it kind of ironic that Trump doesn't want to allow any refugees (Children or no), but when they get gassed now they are innocent and worthy of our protection.

Where has common sense gone in this world. Surely you don't think refugees have anything to do on the opinion of kids getting gassed.

 

[RikidyBones]

Trump in 2013:







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



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 ....

We already have three threads on this you *******. Quit clogging the forum. Jesus Christ











... is your savior

 

[Mick]

Nothing hypocritical at all. I feel sorry for homeless children and donate to a shelter, I don't invite them into my house.

Take a nickel and scram you little scamps.

 

[McDad]

Take a nickel and scram you little scamps.

Hog is W.C. Fields. Makes sense to me.

 

[05_never_again]

EXACTLY!!! Why doesn't anyone else see this?

Because it is not an inconsistent position to be against allowing them into your country and also against them being gassed by their own government.

As Hog said, your opinion is like calling someone a hypocrite who donates money to a homeless shelter yet does not allow those same homeless people into their house.

 

[05_never_again]

Obama's mistake wasn't in not bombing Syria. It was in declaring a "red line" and then doing nothing when your line was crossed. It makes you look like a fool.

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

They do fly low, but its not like they were circling the airfield in plain sight of the enemy. That's not a smartass answer either so hopefully you don't take it as such.

The launch also occurred at 3:43 in the morning

No none taken. I didn't know they had this capability. So if that was the plan for them to wait till all were close before they all drop in how does that work? Do the Tomahawks climb to a certain altitude 100 miles away from it's target and start circling?

 

[Mick]

Hog is W.C. Fields. Makes sense to me.

I had him in mind when I said that but didn't know his name.

 

[orangeluvr]

Protection...over there.

Who knows what the solution is , but creating in country safe zones has been mentioned.

 

[Pacer92]

As Bufford T Justice would say

"Its an attention getter"

There is a new kid on the block and he won't shed fake tears and shack his finger and say "you better not" while they still do

It's also a violation of international law..

It's an attack on another sovereign country without the permission or approval of the UN Security Council..

There still is no legitimate evidence that Assad used gas...

 

[CagleMtnVol]

It's also a violation of international law..

It's an attack on another sovereign country without the permission or approval of the UN Security Council..

There still is no legitimate evidence that Assad used gas...

:hmm:

 

[Biopsyman]

Susan Rice and Obama said Syria gave up their chemical weapons.. Whoops

 

[volinbham]

That doesn't seem consistent with the accounts I've been reading lately. It seems more like the GOP shamed him into it. And then balked at approving it, which of course is the real irony.

Ummm, Dems wouldn't support him

 

[Biopsyman]

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.

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

Rouge states always comply with deals...:crazy:

 

[volinbham]

Obviously, as one in the minority here, a lot of my time is spent attempting, sadly with little success it seems, to identify and then explain to folks the logical fallacies they posit.

ost-4-1090547912:

that's like Aaron Hernandez teaching an anger management class

 

[n_huffhines]

Trump in 2013:







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



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 ....

That's funny, i don't see Amash, Massie, or R Paul in there.

 

[GAVol]

I can hear it cranking up.

 

[GAVol]

ost-4-1090547912:

that's like Aaron Hernandez teaching an anger management class

You have to admire the lack of self awareness.

 

[Grand Vol]

Who knows what the solution is , but creating in country safe zones has been mentioned.

Plenty of real estate in a safe country here:

 

[Grand Vol]

I'm still on the fence about what happened. However, some good things to take away (for those open minded enough):

A: We used Tomahawk missiles which means we were not putting American pilot's lives directly at risk.

B: We warned Russia in advance (and yes, they told the Syrians) but avoided a direct confrontation with Russia by killing their troops. I'm sure Tillerson's meet and greet with Putin next week will be a bit chilly, but other than gripe, the Russians really don't have any ammo to toss at us.

C: The loss of life was remarkably low for that many cruise missiles being lobbed at that base (gives credence to the Russians warning Syria theory). But all in all, the death toll could have been far worse.

D: World leaders saw the US was not going to be yet another empty rhetoric Presidency. It does give our allies renewed hope knowing they won't be on their own. And also:

E: Fat Boy Kim in North Korea saw it, Iran saw it, Russia for sure saw it, other despots around the world saw the fact we didn't even give any notice (save the Russians) that we were about to do it. Very Reagan-esque way of business in my opinion. But overall, they have to be thinking "dang, Trump isn't the pushover his predecessor was." And that can have serious ramifications down the road.

I do think it was kind of funny that all this went down while Trump was at dinner with Xi. "Oh, by the way, right now we're bombing a base in Syria back to the stone age. How is your steak?"

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

It's also a violation of international law..

It's an attack on another sovereign country without the permission or approval of the UN Security Council..

There still is no legitimate evidence that Assad used gas...

It isn't a violation of international law. Since 9/11 the president can act without going through Congress.


Notice I didn't mention the UN. This is atleast 5 times Assad has used gas on his people. Where is the UN while these kids look like a fish out of water trying to breathe? Please don't mention them in a serious sentence.

Your third sentence is ridiculous and requires 0 response.

 

[McDad]

I'm still on the fence about what happened. However, some good things to take away (for those open minded enough):

A: We used Tomahawk missiles which means we were not putting American pilot's lives directly at risk.

B: We warned Russia in advance (and yes, they told the Syrians) but avoided a direct confrontation with Russia by killing their troops. I'm sure Tillerson's meet and greet with Putin next week will be a bit chilly, but other than gripe, the Russians really don't have any ammo to toss at us.

C: The loss of life was remarkably low for that many cruise missiles being lobbed at that base (gives credence to the Russians warning Syria theory). But all in all, the death toll could have been far worse.

D: World leaders saw the US was not going to be yet another empty rhetoric Presidency. It does give our allies renewed hope knowing they won't be on their own. And also:

E: Fat Boy Kim in North Korea saw it, Iran saw it, Russia for sure saw it, other despots around the world saw the fact we didn't even give any notice (save the Russians) that we were about to do it. Very Reagan-esque way of business in my opinion. But overall, they have to be thinking "dang, Trump isn't the pushover his predecessor was." And that can have serious ramifications down the road.

I do think it was kind of funny that all this went down while Trump was at dinner with Xi. "Oh, by the way, right now we're bombing a base in Syria back to the stone age. How is your steak?"

I still don't like it. But if it must be done, they did it the "right" way.

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

I'm still on the fence about what happened. However, some good things to take away (for those open minded enough):

A: We used Tomahawk missiles which means we were not putting American pilot's lives directly at risk.

B: We warned Russia in advance (and yes, they told the Syrians) but avoided a direct confrontation with Russia by killing their troops. I'm sure Tillerson's meet and greet with Putin next week will be a bit chilly, but other than gripe, the Russians really don't have any ammo to toss at us.

C: The loss of life was remarkably low for that many cruise missiles being lobbed at that base (gives credence to the Russians warning Syria theory). But all in all, the death toll could have been far worse.

D: World leaders saw the US was not going to be yet another empty rhetoric Presidency. It does give our allies renewed hope knowing they won't be on their own. And also:

E: Fat Boy Kim in North Korea saw it, Iran saw it, Russia for sure saw it, other despots around the world saw the fact we didn't even give any notice (save the Russians) that we were about to do it. Very Reagan-esque way of business in my opinion. But overall, they have to be thinking "dang, Trump isn't the pushover his predecessor was." And that can have serious ramifications down the road.

I do think it was kind of funny that all this went down while Trump was at dinner with Xi. "Oh, by the way, right now we're bombing a base in Syria back to the stone age. How is your steak?"

Great points. You forgot F.

F. Assad will think twice before dropping gas again because the next Tomahawk may drop in on his palace.



I mentioned it earlier but the barrell bombs he and the Russians are dropping are just about as bad. They have a high collateral damage and aren't strategic strike weapons.

 

[Grand Vol]

Great points. You forgot F.

F. Assad will think twice before dropping gas again because the next Tomahawk may drop in on his palace.

I'll disagree on this one. Trump already made the statement (policy) regime change was not in the cards. If he does go after Assad and takes him out, we have another potential Libya on our hands.

It's better (and I'd hope he's getting this advice) to get him to step aside and call for new elections. Of course, at the moment he has no reason to do so as I outlined yesterday. Assad is sitting in the catbird seat since again, a stalemate is as good as a win for him. And since the Russians aren't backing down at the moment, he has no reason to step aside. Now if they were to withdraw support? That changes the whole paradigm of things.

Which does bring up a question about that support. Do you think the US would/should be willing to undo the sanctions against Russia in exchange for them allowing the Crimea to determine it's own path (internationally supervised elections) and withdrawal of support for Assad?