ADVERTISEMENT

Well, that escalated quickly - Syrian edition

Medic007

Medic007

MegaPoke is insane
Sep 25, 2006
33,186
52,051
113
Cruise missle assault on a Syrian air base. No red lines, no warning. If this is what Team Trump has in mind, destroying the air capability of Assad, I can get behind that. It's something The Kenyan should have already done in response to earlier incidents.

Ballsy, but will it be effective? And of course, did Assad forces actually deploy the chemical agent or is it Iraq 2.0?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/0...a-in-response-to-chemical-weapons-attack.html
 
  • Like
Reactions: shortbus
Going to be some serious Top Gun action over Syria in the next week or two.
 
Airlift the Christians out and fly weapons in then let these vermin exterminate themselves. Not a fan of this other then the "potential" projected message it sends to that nut in NKorea. You can do a lot of things with cruise missiles that don't require troops.

Reason #1,567,891,671 the press is just a total bunch of dishonest scumbag liberal POS! They use dead women and children as a backdrop to intervene in civil wars, then after the intervention has happened they use women and children as a means to illustrate how the mean ole USA and allies are baby killers. The final oldie but goodie, is during all these protests you see populations, most of whom can't even read or write their own language, carrying signs in English......

I'm 100% not in favor of a concerted military ground effort in the ME, except to keep Israel from being overrun.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnVoight, Rdcldad and Medic007
Saw where we've had over 7000 air strikes in Syria over the past few years. If we cut through all the media sensationalism and Biff's drama I'm not sure this is a big deal. Maybe bigger diplomatically than militarily.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Been Jammin
syskatine said:
Saw where we've had over 7000 air strikes in Syria over the past few years. If we cut through all the media sensationalism and Biff's drama I'm not sure this is a big deal. Maybe bigger diplomatically than militarily.
Click to expand...
Except those airstrikes were on ISIS. None have been on Assad's forces until now. Same difference?
 
I approve of this action.

-Something has to be done about a government that is willing to use chemical weapons against innocent civilians. If no one else is going to step up, the U.S. should step in.

-There are no better options. There are other options to try to curtail Al-Assad, but none of them are clearly better options than what Trump did last night.

-As @syskatine pointed out, this is really not all that different than the airstrikes that we have participated in over recent years. It is a more intense attack (more damage over shorter time period), but it was really about sending a message more than anything.

-The strike was purposely implemented at 4 a.m. to minimize loss of human life. More proof that it was about sending a message.

-This does nothing to "disprove" the Trump/Russia narrative. As pointed out, the Russians may well have been warned ahead of time. They can posture all they want, after the fact. They may well be pissed off at the U.S., but they might also be putting on a show of fake indignation.

-As to Congress being upset about not being consulted...STFU. Were they consulted prior to each airstrike? What about prior to the mission which resulted in the death of Bin Laden? This was a single strategic strike. I don't think POTUS needs to ask permission. Now, if he wants to send in ground troops, declare war, or something of that magnitude, I think he should clear it with Congress first.

-I wonder if this situation results in a change of heart, for Trump, when it comes to Syrian refugees (or refugees in general). Pretty tough to watch the video of the gassed citizens, and then launch a missile strike against the base where the planes took off to deliver the gas, without accepting that maybe those innocent civilians should have a safe place to go, should they be able to escape from their country.
 
Been Jammin said:
I approve of this action.

-Something has to be done about a government that is willing to use chemical weapons against innocent civilians. If no one else is going to step up, the U.S. should step in.

-There are no better options. There are other options to try to curtail Al-Assad, but none of them are clearly better options than what Trump did last night.

-As @syskatine pointed out, this is really not all that different than the airstrikes that we have participated in over recent years. It is a more intense attack (more damage over shorter time period), but it was really about sending a message more than anything.

-The strike was purposely implemented at 4 a.m. to minimize loss of human life. More proof that it was about sending a message.

-This does nothing to "disprove" the Trump/Russia narrative. As pointed out, the Russians may well have been warned ahead of time. They can posture all they want, after the fact. They may well be pissed off at the U.S., but they might also be putting on a show of fake indignation.

-As to Congress being upset about not being consulted...STFU. Were they consulted prior to each airstrike? What about prior to the mission which resulted in the death of Bin Laden? This was a single strategic strike. I don't think POTUS needs to ask permission. Now, if he wants to send in ground troops, declare war, or something of that magnitude, I think he should clear it with Congress first.

-I wonder if this situation results in a change of heart, for Trump, when it comes to Syrian refugees (or refugees in general). Pretty tough to watch the video of the gassed citizens, and then launch a missile strike against the base where the planes took off to deliver the gas, without accepting that maybe those innocent civilians should have a safe place to go, should they be able to escape from their country.
Click to expand...

Perhaps Israel can take in some of those Syrian refugees. You ok with that?
 
Been Jammin said:
I approve of this action.

-Something has to be done about a government that is willing to use chemical weapons against innocent civilians. If no one else is going to step up, the U.S. should step in.

-There are no better options. There are other options to try to curtail Al-Assad, but none of them are clearly better options than what Trump did last night.

-As @syskatine pointed out, this is really not all that different than the airstrikes that we have participated in over recent years. It is a more intense attack (more damage over shorter time period), but it was really about sending a message more than anything.

-The strike was purposely implemented at 4 a.m. to minimize loss of human life. More proof that it was about sending a message.

-This does nothing to "disprove" the Trump/Russia narrative. As pointed out, the Russians may well have been warned ahead of time. They can posture all they want, after the fact. They may well be pissed off at the U.S., but they might also be putting on a show of fake indignation.

-As to Congress being upset about not being consulted...STFU. Were they consulted prior to each airstrike? What about prior to the mission which resulted in the death of Bin Laden? This was a single strategic strike. I don't think POTUS needs to ask permission. Now, if he wants to send in ground troops, declare war, or something of that magnitude, I think he should clear it with Congress first.

-I wonder if this situation results in a change of heart, for Trump, when it comes to Syrian refugees (or refugees in general). Pretty tough to watch the video of the gassed citizens, and then launch a missile strike against the base where the planes took off to deliver the gas, without accepting that maybe those innocent civilians should have a safe place to go, should they be able to escape from their country.
Click to expand...

it's ok that said government has starved civilians bombed schools and hospitals but the minute they use chemical weapons we decide to get involved?

seriously dead women and children are dead women and children

this crap did not start two days ago
 
  • Like
Reactions: CowboyJD, shortbus, windriverrange and 1 other person
Been Jammin said:
-As @syskatine pointed out, this is really not all that different than the airstrikes that we have participated in over recent years. It is a more intense attack (more damage over shorter time period), but it was really about sending a message more than anything.
Click to expand...
Except this strike was against the Assad government, not the terrorists. Yuge difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CowboyJD
Medic007 said:
Except those airstrikes were on ISIS. None have been on Assad's forces until now. Same difference?
Click to expand...

Maybe. Maybe not. I'm not sure theres a hill of beans difference between one group or another. Its a morass. We've raised hell about the chemical weapons thing for a long time. At first blush it looks like a proportional, sensible response. I don't think there are any real foolproof moves in the mideast. I'm just hesitant to second guess a POTUS on dealing with that shit show.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bitter Creek and CBradSmith
syskatine said:
Maybe. Maybe not. I'm not sure theres a hill of beans difference between one group or another. Its a morass. We've raised hell about the chemical weapons thing for a long time. At first blush it looks like a proportional, sensible response. I don't think there are any real foolproof moves in the mideast. I'm just hesitant to second guess a POTUS on dealing with that shit show.
Click to expand...
When it comes to the Russians and the Iranians, there's more than a hill of beans difference. It does look like a sensible response and finally an actual response. Will it be worth the possible consequences is the question. But if this is the first in an attempt to remove Assad from power, count me out. Obama was dumb in arming the "moderate" terrorists, but at least he had sense enough to steer clear of military action to remove Assad, unlike what was done in Libya.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CowboyJD, MegaPoke, NZ Poke and 1 other person
tumblr_onz555LiZO1uy57v5o1_1280.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: CowboyJD, wyomingosualum, MegaPoke and 1 other person
Medic007 said:
When it comes to the Russians and the Iranians, there's more than a hill of beans difference. It does look like a sensible response and finally an actual response. Will it be worth the possible consequences is the question. But if this is the first in an attempt to remove Assad from power, count me out. Obama was dumb in arming the "moderate" terrorists, but at least he had sense enough to steer clear of military action to remove Assad, unlike what was done in Libya.
Click to expand...

I don't think the U.S./Trump is interested in removing Assad from power. The only way that happens is by sending in ground troops, and I don't think anyone feels like that is a good idea. It didn't fix Iraq/Afghanistan, and it would, likely, not be a different result in Syria.

With ISIS already having a significant anti-Assad presence in Syria, the potential for negative consequences, to removing Assad, is enormous.

I am guessing that Trump wants to send a message that chemical strikes will not be tolerated. Assad/Syria will be allowed to take whatever path lies ahead of them as long as he is not committing "atrocities" against innocent people.

The definition of "atrocities" is on a sliding scale. Everyone now knows that use of chemical weapons is beyond the line of what will be tolerated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N. Pappagiorgio
BIGOSUFAN said:
Perhaps Israel can take in some of those Syrian refugees. You ok with that?
Click to expand...

I guess that is up to the Israeli government. I don't have much of an opinion.

To clarify, I'm not crazy about letting Syrian refugees into this country. But, I'm also not crazy about flipping them off and saying, "tough shit, get over it". I am not hoping that Trump opens our borders to them. I am just wondering if this situation will result in him softening his rhetoric when it comes to Syrian refugees, and refugees in general.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back