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

[AirVol]

Trump owns stock in Raytheon

http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trumps-stock-portfolio-2015-7

Raytheon's stocks surged after the bombing

https://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:RTN

Wonder who was buying stock the day before the strikes?

Good question.

 

[InVOLuntary]

I'm your Huckleberry.
-The directed strike in Syria was due to the violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention by Assad.
-They're only the same in that they're both dead. On average in the Vietnam War, it took about 50,000 rounds of ammunition to kill 1 enemy soldier. The numbers were similar for OIF/OEF. Conversely, 1 warhead of chemical weapons can rapidly kill multiple city blocks in an urban environment.
-You have 3 Trump arguments here which are pretty much all the same. However, this was the first time chemical weapons were used against innocent civilians since he has been in the seat and the most blatant use I can think of in quite a while. He acted accordingly. Trump remains opposed to a long protracted involvement in Syria and a quick, limited strike does nothing to change that.
-Trump is not completely indifferent to the plight of civilians in Syria. He does, however, put the safety of the American people above aimlessly letting in unscreened refugees.

You forgot to drop the Mike.

 

[InVOLuntary]

If this strike prevents Assad from using chemical warfare again, was it worth it?

 

[n_huffhines]

If this strike prevents Assad from using chemical warfare again, was it worth it?

If this is where our involvement ends, then probably.

 

[Velo Vol]

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

I'm your Huckleberry.
-The directed strike in Syria was due to the violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention by Assad.

Or, the Syrians could have been bombing an ISIS munitions facility and released the gas that they were illegally storing.

Or, ISIS really released the gas.

Assad intentionally gassing his people seems like the least likely scenario because he and Russia were beating ISIS.

 

[Grand Vol]

Lol, you getting trolled by a fake Tweet.

 

[InVOLuntary]

If this is where our involvement ends, then probably.

I think this was very measured. Didn't want to kill anyone. And to be honest does anyone not believe we could have done more if we'd wanted to. My guess he's been put on notice that if it happens again it will be much more severe. I don't think he has any intention of getting anymore involved other than what we've witnessed​.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

If this strike prevents Assad from using chemical warfare again, was it worth it?

You're making the assumption that he did use chemical weapons.

 

[n_huffhines]

You're making the assumption that he did use chemical weapons.

right

 

[Pacer92]

Or, the Syrians could have been bombing an ISIS munitions facility and released the gas that they were illegally storing.

Or, ISIS really released the gas.

Assad intentionally gassing his people seems like the least likely scenario because he and Russia were beating ISIS.

Like I've said earlier, Assad had zero to gain by dropping chemical weapons and everything to lose....he, nor the Russians, are dumb enough to risk losing everything they have fought for to gas a few terrorists...

It makes absolutely no sense...

 

[volprof]

Lol, you getting trolled by a fake Tweet.

http://gopocalypse.org/dumb-sean-ha...e-russian-twitter-account-and-its-hysterical/

Again, someone acting very guilty.

What has that sniveling piece of human debris been up to, I wonder.

 

[Pepe_Silvia]

Been paying quite a bit of attention actually. Have yet to hear 1 argument of merit. If you have something new and Earth shattering I'd love to hear it.

Nothing earth shattering because it's actually commonsense and has been stated in this thread more than once. We should stop intervening in these middle east conflicts. Our middle eastern policy has proven to be a total disaster.

 

[InVOLuntary]

You're making the assumption that he did use chemical weapons.

Yea, I ran out of aluminum foil while smoking some baby back ribs.

 

[n_huffhines]

Yea, I ran out of aluminum foil while smoking some baby back ribs.

It doesn't take a conspiracy for ISIS to frame Assad. Just put on a thinking cap and you'll be fine without tin foil.

 

[InVOLuntary]

It doesn't take a conspiracy for ISIS to frame Assad. Just put on a thinking cap and you'll be fine without tin foil.

You guys make everything too complicated. Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely, no. Isis would be counting on Trump to do a 180 and change what he's preached for months and years. Eye whiteness saw the bombs being dropped.

 

[Velo Vol]

Lol, you getting trolled by a fake Tweet.

Is it fake? I did not check the authenticity. It's very similar to what Trump himself was tweeting at the time.

 

[Grand Vol]

Is it fake? I did not check the authenticity. It's very similar to what Trump himself was tweeting at the time.

Of course you didn't. Why actually check the authenticity of something that fits your agenda?

 

[n_huffhines]

You guys make everything too complicated. Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely, no. Isis would be counting on Trump to do a 180 and change what he's preached for months and years. Eye whiteness saw the bombs being dropped.

What on earth makes you think it is unlikely?

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Eye whiteness saw the bombs being dropped.

No one is denying that the Syrians dropped bombs. The question is if the bombs were loaded with sarin gas or if they were just conventional bombs that hit a sarin gas storage facility.

 

[OuterBanksVol]

So right now, the poll associated with this thread shows that 48% approve of Trump's bombing. Question for the 48%:

What response, if any, should Trump have if Syria doesn't use Sarin gas anymore, but rather, replaces it with Chlorine gas? There is evidence that this may have actually already occurred (post-Tomahawks) in a city called Hama, and it's generally accepted that Assad has certainly used Chlorine bombs in the past.

So, does the use of Chlorine gas bombs - and the deaths of more babies - deserve another missile strike from us?

 

[Pacer92]

What on earth makes you think it is unlikely?

I don't understand this reasoning either...

In 2013 the US government and western media immediately ran with reports that Assad had gassed civilians in Eastern Ghouta. Government officials were chomping at the bit to bomb Assad immediately, without delay..."we have to bomb Assad"..."he did it"..."he did it"...without a thorough and impartial investigation...

An international investigation was launched and it concluded that sarin gas had been used but could not pinpoint blame on either Assad or the rebels...why not wait on an investigation this time, knowing reports were wrong in the almost identical act the first time?

This looks no different to me. Assad hasn't the motive. The emotion tugging propaganda of children and women was there the first time. The false claims and eye witnesses were there. The rush to judgement...

Americans are being duped...

 

[InVOLuntary]

What on earth makes you think it is unlikely?

What makes you think it is likely? Like I said, you guys make things too complicated. It's seldom more complicated than it appears. What would isis have to gain? Make Assad look like a bad guy? Everybody knows Assad is a pos.

 

[InVOLuntary]

No one is denying that the Syrians dropped bombs. The question is if the bombs were loaded with sarin gas or if they were just conventional bombs that hit a sarin gas storage facility.

They showed some if the bomb craters. If they were conventional bombs, they were barely more than you can buy at your local fireworks stand.

 

[JFreak]

So, does the use of Chlorine gas bombs - and the deaths of more babies - deserve another missile strike from us?

Use of chlorine gas as a chemical weapon is a schedule 3 controlled substance under the CWC of which Syria is a signee. And yes, the use of chemical weapons against innocent civilians should lead to repercussions.