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

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

  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .
#201
#201
Hayezb said:
I'll echo my comment in another thread.. yes, and only because Mattis was reported to have been one of the main people advising him. I trust him over pretty much everybody else.
Click to expand...

This plus the caveat that we just doing discrete responses rather than some move towards deeper, ongoing engagement (more than we already are)
 
#202
#202
utvols88 said:
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.
Click to expand...

So... by your reasoning, we did not attack or damage ANY PROPERTY belonging to the Russians due to our airstrike. How exactly have you reached this conclusion, Einstein?
 
#205
#205
lawgator1 said:
See above.

Trump called for it, too.
Click to expand...

The least you could do is actually put the NYT link up so I don't have to search for it. However, find it I did.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/middleeast/syria.html

From that same article:

“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.”

“It will be an uphill battle for the president to convince me because I think he has handled this entire situation quite poorly,” said Representative Tim Griffin, Republican of Arkansas. “And frankly I am reluctant to give him a license for war when, with all due respect, I have little confidence he knows what he is doing.”

Even Senators John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, two Republicans who have pressed Mr. Obama to intervene more aggressively in Syria, said Saturday that they might vote no because the president’s plan was too limited. “We cannot in good conscience support isolated military strikes in Syria that are not part of an overall strategy that can change the momentum on the battlefield,” they said in a statement.
Click to expand...

But wait! There's more from this linked offer!

Presidents in modern times have used military force both with and without Congressional authorization. George Bush and George W. Bush both won votes from lawmakers before wars with Iraq, and Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton launched strikes against Libya, Afghanistan and Kosovo without asking permission.

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.
Click to expand...
 
#206
#206
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...

As others have stated, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell Tomahawks had a 50% success rate, unless Russian ABMs were involved in some way...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missile
 
#207
#207
Any of you news hounds hearing anything from Assad, Syrian government or the Syrian people today?
 
#208
#208
hog88 said:
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.
Click to expand...

This. He backed himself into a corner saw going to Congress as a way out. "Felt" some resistance in Congress and ended up saying I did nothing because Congress wouldn't approve it.

Completely opposite of our much more massive involvement in Libya and de facto regime change.

The reality is POTI are relying on the "war on terror" authorization to do just about anything they want in the ME.
 
#211
#211
Grand Vol said:
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.
Click to expand...

Love the way it starts "so Russia is claiming..." I'm sure OBV has a different opinion about things Russia claims if it goes against his views.

Of course we told Russia - only an idiot would not and of course we knew they'd pass the info along.

This was a message strike not a take it all out strike.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#212
#212
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...

The communists are masters of disinformation.
 
#213
#213
Through_The_T said:
As others have stated, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell Tomahawks had a 50% success rate, unless Russian ABMs were involved in some way...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missile
Click to expand...

Again, I stated that Russia exaggerated the number of misses. But the video proof undeniably shows that a fair number of targets were untouched. (queue entry left by conspiracy theorists who will argue the Russian and Syrian footage now available is "fake")
 
#214
#214
volinbham said:
Love the way it starts "so Russia is claiming..." I'm sure OBV has a different opinion about things Russia claims if it goes against his views.

Of course we told Russia - only an idiot would not and of course we knew they'd pass the info along.

This was a message strike not a take it all out strike.
Click to expand...

Yet, he will scoff when Russia says it wasn't involved in our elections.

Selected hypocrisy. Always fun to watch.
 
#215
#215
volinbham said:
Love the way it starts "so Russia is claiming..." I'm sure OBV has a different opinion about things Russia claims if it goes against his views.

Of course we told Russia - only an idiot would not and of course we knew they'd pass the info along.

This was a message strike not a take it all out strike.
Click to expand...

The Russian conspiracy screechers are so idiotic, they believe Russian troops should not have been given notice and should have been present at the base when the missiles hit.

What a great and novel idea. Let's kill scores of troops belonging to a country that, along with ourselves, could wipe out the entire globe multiple times over, and has a larger stockpile of nuclear weapons than anyone else in the world. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the issues with that scenario...
 
#216
#216
OuterBanksVol said:
Again, I stated that Russia exaggerated the number of misses. But the video proof undeniably shows that a fair number of targets were untouched. (queue entry left by conspiracy theorists who will argue the Russian and Syrian footage now available is "fake")
Click to expand...

Conspiracy theorists complaining about conspiracy theorist......................hypocrite much?
 
#217
#217
NYT: Trump did the right thing. Only one opposed is Russia, Syria, Iran, and the Alt-Right
C8z76-LUMAAk1c_.jpg


I think it's interesting the split of opinions on this. I can understand libertarians being opposed. But I didn't expect how many on the left are on board
 
Last edited:
#219
#219
golfballs said:
NYT: Trump did the right thing. Only one opposed is Russia, Syria, Iran, and the Alt-Right
C8z76-LUMAAk1c_.jpg


I think it's interesting the split of opinions on this. I can understand libertarians being opposed. But I didn't expect that most of the left would be on board considering how anti-war they supposedly are
Click to expand...

The left is not pro war for sure but can see a measured response was in order.
 
#221
#221
golfballs said:
NYT: Trump did the right thing. Only one opposed is Russia, Syria, Iran, and the Alt-Right
C8z76-LUMAAk1c_.jpg


I think it's interesting the split of opinions on this. I can understand libertarians being opposed. But I didn't expect that most of the left would be on board considering how anti-war they supposedly are
Click to expand...

They are only anti-war when war is proposed by a guy with an R after his name. War is a partisan issue just like anything else. The NYT was a big cheerleader for the Iraq War before it began. The internationalist neocons in the editorial pages (Thomas Friedman, etc.) all advocated for it. It wasn't until it became unpopular and strongly associated with a Republican president that they became critical.

Remember, several prominent liberals, including people in the Obama administration (like Hillary Clinton) strongly advocated for intervening in Syria. So if they have some reserved support when Trump does it it shouldn't be all that surprising.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#222
#222
Reports that 58 of the 59 targets were destroyed. Also, my mistake, they actually used the 109E instead of the D's.
 
#223
#223
Nobody outside of a few morons on here have even questioned the fact the Russians were given advanced warning in order to evacuate.
 
#224
#224
Support the strike, it puts the world's bad actors on notice. Hope it doesn't turn into Iraq 2.0. The enemies of peace and prosperity should be held in check or neutralized.
 
#225
#225
orangeluvr said:
Support the strike, it puts the world's bad actors on notice. Hope it doesn't turn into Iraq 2.0. The enemies of peace and prosperity should be held in check or neutralized.
Click to expand...

We just helped a group that is a bigger global enemy to peace and prosperity than Assad is.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top