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

Do you agree with Trump's decision to strike Syria?

  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .
#176
#176
lawgator1 said:
Politically, what do you all make of Trump not seeking Congressional approval? Obama was warned by the GOP that he needed to seek it in 2013 and told he would get it. But when he did so in 2013, the GOP Congress turned him down. Now a GOP president goes ahead and strikes, without GOP Congressional approval. And of course Trump in 2013 joined the chorus of people saying Obama needed Congressional approval before a strike.

What this looks like, of course, is that the GOP withheld the okay for it in 2013 purely for political reasons, to make Obama look bad. Same with Trump then.

Now that Trump has done this without seeking approval, shouldn't the GOP Congress be screaming that Trump did this without the authorization they and Trump demanded Obama seek first, in 2013 ?
Click to expand...

The urgency of a response in Syria was not present so it seems more in line with distracting from the collusion investigation since russia was warned and congress was not consulted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#177
#177
OuterBanksVol said:
So Russia is claiming that only 23 out the 59 missiles launched actually hit the airbase. I think they're probably right (but exaggerating) that a significant number didn't make it and/or missed their target. Look at the following video, and you'll see some untouched planes in bunkers not hit by missiles. One would have to assume that we actually launched enough missiles to actually take out every fortified plane bunker, at a minimum.

http://www.smh.com.au/video/video-n...-syrian-air-base-released-20170407-4sp38.html

Plus, having received a heads-up from the Russians, it would appear that the Syrians managed to move some of their planes out from their protected bunkers. Check out this Russian MOD drone footage that shows at least 5 Syrian migs sitting out of their bunkers at an odd location by the side of a runway.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2DU6iw0zoQ

Again, I get the reason why we gave the Russians warning, but the net result is that we'd really need to strike them again in order to affect their ability to launch more air strikes. And if there is a next time, will the Russians have their air defense systems up-and-running?
Click to expand...

I'm claiming you are a fool for thinking we had over a 50% failure rate on those missiles. Because it's happened so often before, you know.

But I bet it's Trump's fault regardless.
 
#178
#178
lawgator1 said:
Politically, what do you all make of Trump not seeking Congressional approval? Obama was warned by the GOP that he needed to seek it in 2013 and told he would get it. But when he did so in 2013, the GOP Congress turned him down. Now a GOP president goes ahead and strikes, without GOP Congressional approval. And of course Trump in 2013 joined the chorus of people saying Obama needed Congressional approval before a strike.

What this looks like, of course, is that the GOP withheld the okay for it in 2013 purely for political reasons, to make Obama look bad. Same with Trump then.

Now that Trump has done this without seeking approval, shouldn't the GOP Congress be screaming that Trump did this without the authorization they and Trump demanded Obama seek first, in 2013 ?
Click to expand...

I don't understand your intent on question like this. Of course things are done for purely political reasons. And of course both parties do it ALL THE TIME. Partisan hypocrisy is SOP for every dip**** in DC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#179
#179
lawgator1 said:
Politically, what do you all make of Trump not seeking Congressional approval? Obama was warned by the GOP that he needed to seek it in 2013 and told he would get it. But when he did so in 2013, the GOP Congress turned him down. Now a GOP president goes ahead and strikes, without GOP Congressional approval. And of course Trump in 2013 joined the chorus of people saying Obama needed Congressional approval before a strike.

What this looks like, of course, is that the GOP withheld the okay for it in 2013 purely for political reasons, to make Obama look bad. Same with Trump then.

Now that Trump has done this without seeking approval, shouldn't the GOP Congress be screaming that Trump did this without the authorization they and Trump demanded Obama seek first, in 2013 ?
Click to expand...

Yes, they should. However, not sure if there will be much political fallout unless this sparks some kind of drawn-out military engagement
 
#180
#180
lawgator1 said:
Politically, what do you all make of Trump not seeking Congressional approval? Obama was warned by the GOP that he needed to seek it in 2013 and told he would get it. But when he did so in 2013, the GOP Congress turned him down. Now a GOP president goes ahead and strikes, without GOP Congressional approval. And of course Trump in 2013 joined the chorus of people saying Obama needed Congressional approval before a strike.

What this looks like, of course, is that the GOP withheld the okay for it in 2013 purely for political reasons, to make Obama look bad. Same with Trump then.

Now that Trump has done this without seeking approval, shouldn't the GOP Congress be screaming that Trump did this without the authorization they and Trump demanded Obama seek first, in 2013 ?
Click to expand...

As it's been stated time and time again, the President doesn't need Congressional approval for such actions. And I don't recall Obama going to Congress asking for permission to strike in 2013. Got a link for that?

But it's funny you bring up such things. I do recall Congress not giving the go-ahead in 2011 when we started an air campaign against Libya. But you just keep avoiding that question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#181
#181
I am torn on the issue. Here are a few facts that I reason with:

- Monopoly of violence is reserved for the state (principle of warfare)
- Chem and Bio weapons are banned. Most countries destroyed their stockpiles with the exception of a few rogue countries. The use of said weapons is an atrocity.

A few counter point:
- There has been no developed policy regarding asymmetric threats utilizing violence in accomplishment of their goals outside of bomb them. It is hard to hold a non-governing group accountable for executing attacks. Even more so if they operate in the territory of a failed state. That begs the question of what do we do about it? If they are not held accountable and they continue to attack outside of their borders, what is the justified response? Additionally, if a country uses a banned weapon on its citizens, what is the appropriate response? Do we just finger wag and say don't do it again? What will deter them in the future from doing it again?

Getting more into banned weapons, outside of Syria the only other state in modern remembrance that has uses these banned weapons against their own people was Iraq. The precedent establish was regime change. We have all agreed that regime change is not an optimal solution in Syria. Violating the principle of monopoly of violence from the state, several groups have employed chemical weapons in attacks. Aum Shinryko, some of the Iraq insurgent groups (chlorine based), and the Syrian rebels have employed these substances. So it is not beyond reason that a group in the future can carry out these attacks. Unfortunately, there in no policy regarding state and group usage for a response to these attacks.

In the end, I am pretty sure I agreed with the strike, provided that the government of Syria did indeed carry out the chemical attacks. I know with certainty, that I do not agree with regime change.
 
#182
#182
McDad said:
I don't understand your intent on question like this. Of course things are done for purely political reasons. And of course both parties do it ALL THE TIME. Partisan hypocrisy is SOP for every dip**** in DC.
Click to expand...

Don't look now, 00.01%er, but you're back to being in the minority.

Get to the back of the bus please.
 
#183
#183
SergeantVol said:
The precedent establish was regime change. We have all agreed that regime change is not an optimal solution in Syria.
Click to expand...

I would have to say a controlled change of power in Syria can be accomplished. However, upsetting the apple cart as we've been fond of doing certainly isn't the path we need to take.
 
#184
#184
Grand Vol said:
I would have to say a controlled change of power in Syria can be accomplished. However, upsetting the apple cart as we've been fond of doing certainly isn't the path we need to take.
Click to expand...

I would stay away from us doing the regime change with a 30 ft pole. We have a habit of making things worse. We can to realize that a western style democracy isn't for everyone.

Take Iraq for example. We tried to ensure equal representation for the Kurds, Shia, and Sunnis. That went over about as well as a fart in church. None of them like each other and all of them wanted to exclude each other. The political boundaries drawn within the ME is to blame for all the strife. The colonial powers that be, should have let the people of the ME decide on how the boundaries were drawn up.
 
#185
#185
Mick said:
The urgency of a response in Syria was not present so it seems more in line with distracting from the collusion investigation since russia was warned and congress was not consulted.
Click to expand...

distract from a fake scandal

5D chess
 
#186
#186
OuterBanksVol said:
Dude, are you playing a game of word semantics with "property"? Nobody has suggested anything about bombing Russian-owned *land*, but the Russians along with their military equipment are intertwined with Syria's, and likely their stuff was at the airfield.

This was someone's "property"... not anymore...

View attachment 129974
Click to expand...

It's not word semantics at all. Your analogy implies we told Russia we are attacking their property (mailbox) and then attacked their property (mailbox). Don't get pissy with me because your analogy sucked.
 
#187
#187
lawgator1 said:
Politically, what do you all make of Trump not seeking Congressional approval? Obama was warned by the GOP that he needed to seek it in 2013 and told he would get it. But when he did so in 2013, the GOP Congress turned him down. Now a GOP president goes ahead and strikes, without GOP Congressional approval. And of course Trump in 2013 joined the chorus of people saying Obama needed Congressional approval before a strike.

What this looks like, of course, is that the GOP withheld the okay for it in 2013 purely for political reasons, to make Obama look bad. Same with Trump then.

Now that Trump has done this without seeking approval, shouldn't the GOP Congress be screaming that Trump did this without the authorization they and Trump demanded Obama seek first, in 2013 ?
Click to expand...

In 2013 Obama knew he wasn't getting congressional approval without making some deals on some of the domestic policies. He wouldn't. he never had any intention of striking Assad, asking congress was a pure political move on Obama's part.
 
#189
#189
SergeantVol said:
I would stay away from us doing the regime change with a 30 ft pole. We have a habit of making things worse. We can to realize that a western style democracy isn't for everyone.

Take Iraq for example. We tried to ensure equal representation for the Kurds, Shia, and Sunnis. That went over about as well as a fart in church. None of them like each other and all of them wanted to exclude each other. The political boundaries drawn within the ME is to blame for all the strife. The colonial powers that be, should have let the people of the ME decide on how the boundaries were drawn up.
Click to expand...

I didn't say we would have to be the ones controlling it. A multinational force or the UN would be better suited for that sort of thing with all parties agreeing to it.

I do agree that not everyone over there loves them some Western style democracy, so let the people decide. I will disagree partially on Iraq. I think Joe Biden put it best when he said it was a mistake not to go ahead and carve it into three states, one Shi'a, one Sunni and one Kurd. Of course the three would have been perpetually in conflict since as you stated they hate each other and certain areas would be contested since two or more claim the "rights" to them.

But overall, I think Libya is a better guide on how an uncontrolled regime change can lead to utter disaster. At least Iraq was semi-stable for a while, albeit with major help from us.
 
#190
#190
OuterBanksVol said:
So Russia is claiming that only 23 out the 59 missiles launched actually hit the airbase. I think they're probably right (but exaggerating) that a significant number didn't make it and/or missed their target. Look at the following video, and you'll see some untouched planes in bunkers not hit by missiles. One would have to assume that we actually launched enough missiles to actually take out every fortified plane bunker, at a minimum.

http://www.smh.com.au/video/video-n...-syrian-air-base-released-20170407-4sp38.html

Plus, having received a heads-up from the Russians, it would appear that the Syrians managed to move some of their planes out from their protected bunkers. Check out this Russian MOD drone footage that shows at least 5 Syrian migs sitting out of their bunkers at an odd location by the side of a runway.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2DU6iw0zoQ

Again, I get the reason why we gave the Russians warning, but the net result is that we'd really need to strike them again in order to affect their ability to launch more air strikes. And if there is a next time, will the Russians have their air defense systems up-and-running?
Click to expand...

There isn't a single chance in hell that this is accurate. If you believe it is, I suggest you research the history of the 109D's.
 
#191
#191
Mick said:
The urgency of a response in Syria was not present so it seems more in line with distracting from the collusion investigation since russia was warned and congress was not consulted.
Click to expand...

really? Good grief
 
#193
#193
OuterBanksVol said:
So Russia is claiming that only 23 out the 59 missiles launched actually hit the airbase. I think they're probably right (but exaggerating) that a significant number didn't make it and/or missed their target. Look at the following video, and you'll see some untouched planes in bunkers not hit by missiles. One would have to assume that we actually launched enough missiles to actually take out every fortified plane bunker, at a minimum.

http://www.smh.com.au/video/video-n...-syrian-air-base-released-20170407-4sp38.html

Plus, having received a heads-up from the Russians, it would appear that the Syrians managed to move some of their planes out from their protected bunkers. Check out this Russian MOD drone footage that shows at least 5 Syrian migs sitting out of their bunkers at an odd location by the side of a runway.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2DU6iw0zoQ

Again, I get the reason why we gave the Russians warning, but the net result is that we'd really need to strike them again in order to affect their ability to launch more air strikes. And if there is a next time, will the Russians have their air defense systems up-and-running?
Click to expand...

How do we know that is the same airbase we were shooting at? I'm sure the Syrians have airbases all over the country that are damaged as a result of the war.

Social media, the internet, and the immediacy of information are great but you get so much information flying around it is impossible to verify it.
 
#194
#194
SergeantVol said:
I would stay away from us doing the regime change with a 30 ft pole. We have a habit of making things worse. We can to realize that a western style democracy isn't for everyone.

Take Iraq for example. We tried to ensure equal representation for the Kurds, Shia, and Sunnis. That went over about as well as a fart in church. None of them like each other and all of them wanted to exclude each other. The political boundaries drawn within the ME is to blame for all the strife. The colonial powers that be, should have let the people of the ME decide on how the boundaries were drawn up.
Click to expand...

Israel must expand. Border Turkey to the North, from Caspian Sea to Persian Gulf in East and across to Rea Sea to the West.

They are the only stable country in the whole sandlot.
 
#197
#197
theFallGuy said:
I'm sure he was 100% gung ho when Billy boy randomly bombed Iraq during them middle of the Monica Lewinsky scandal
Click to expand...

Edit: Never mind, you are correct. It was Iraq during that time

Bill was slinging bombs so often during that time it's hard to keep up.
 
Last edited:
#200
#200
Mick said:
The urgency of a response in Syria was not present so it seems more in line with distracting from the collusion investigation since russia was warned and congress was not consulted.
Click to expand...

False. The request followed a chemical attack.


In one of the riskiest gambles of his presidency, Mr. Obama effectively dared lawmakers to either stand by him or, as he put it, allow President Bashar al-Assad of Syria to get away with murdering children with unconventional weapons. By asking them to take a stand, Mr. Obama tried to break out of the isolation of the last week as he confronted taking action without the support of the United Nations, Congress, the public or Britain, a usually reliable partner in such international operations.
“I’m prepared to give that order,” Mr. Obama said in a hurriedly organized appearance in the Rose Garden as American destroyers armed with Tomahawk missiles waited in the Mediterranean Sea. “But having made my decision as commander in chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I’m also mindful that I’m the president of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy.”
Although Congressional leaders hailed his decision to seek the permission of lawmakers who had been clamoring for a say, the turnabout leaves Mr. Obama at the political mercy of House Republicans, many of whom have opposed him at every turn and have already suggested that Syria’s civil war does not pose a threat to the United States. His decision raises the possibility that he would be the first president in modern times to lose a vote on the use of force, much as Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain did in Parliament last week.
Click to expand...


Grand Vol said:
As it's been stated time and time again, the President doesn't need Congressional approval for such actions. And I don't recall Obama going to Congress asking for permission to strike in 2013. Got a link for that?

But it's funny you bring up such things. I do recall Congress not giving the go-ahead in 2011 when we started an air campaign against Libya. But you just keep avoiding that question.
Click to expand...


See above.

Trump called for it, too.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top