U.S. launches missiles at Syrian military targets

[Peter1469]

U.S. launches missiles at Syrian military targets (https://www.washingtonpost.com/regional/?cache=false&reload=true)

Breaking news

[KathyS]

Just heard this. Honestly, at first I was shocked- how long has it been since the U.S. followed through on crossing the red line? After the shock has worn off, I support Trump on this. It's only going to take a little bit of stretching our muscles for other countries to believe we mean what we say.
Trump will certainly get a lot of flack for this, but frankly, after seeing the sweet faces of those dead Syrian children, I'm good with Trump's decision.

[Ethereal]

This is absolutely crazy and illegal. The congress provided Trump with no authorization to attack a sovereign country and its armed forces and there is a possibility that this strike will kill or injure Russian troops stationed alongside the Syrians. Trump is playing with all our lives and for what? Because a few dozen Syrians MIGHT have been killed by some chemicals in a war where hundreds of thousands of people have already died?

[Casper]

U.S. launches missiles at Syrian military targets (https://www.washingtonpost.com/regional/?cache=false&reload=true)

Breaking news
Yeup, the Donald is gonna keep us out of these wars, and pigs are due to take off at first light........................

[Ethereal]

Just heard this. Honestly, at first I was shocked- how long has it been since the U.S. followed through on crossing the red line? After the shock has worn off, I support Trump on this. It's only going to take a little bit of stretching our muscles for other countries to believe we mean what we say.
Trump will certainly get a lot of flack for this, but frankly, after seeing the sweet faces of those dead Syrian children, I'm good with Trump's decision.

You realize that tens of thousands of Syrian children have already died in this civil war, right? What is so special about these particular children that requires unilateral US military action with no congressional debate or authorization? And where is your proof that Assad's forces were even responsible for this attack? I've seen none so far. Even more troubling, Russian personnel are working side-by-side with Assad's forces, meaning this strike could possibly injure or kill Russians. Do you have any idea what that would mean for US-Russian relations that are already fraught with peril?

[Common Sense]

Quite hypocritical of Trump.

Not sure that it's the right course of action.

[Ethereal]

Quite hypocritical of Trump.

Not sure that it's the right course of action.

His critics share a large portion of the blame. No doubt his decision was informed by the months of anti-Russian hysteria and conspiracy theories. This might be his dumb way of proving that he's not Putin's boyfriend.

[Adelaide]

This is absolutely crazy and illegal. The congress provided Trump with no authorization to attack a sovereign country and its armed forces and there is a possibility that this strike will kill or injure Russian troops stationed alongside the Syrians. Trump is playing with all our lives and for what? Because a few dozen Syrians MIGHT have been killed by some chemicals in a war where hundreds of thousands of people have already died?

I am inclined to agree. It is sad and tragic how those died due to possible chemical weapons, but so many have already died or been forced to flee and live in disgusting and unsafe refugee camps. A strike now? Seems like the chemical weapons were used as an excuse, rather than the reason, if that makes sense.

[Common Sense]

His critics share a large portion of the blame. No doubt his decision was informed by the months of anti-Russian hysteria and conspiracy theories. This might be his dumb way of proving that he's not Putin's boyfriend.

That's a bit of a stretch.

Reports are that his change of heart comes from seeing pictures of the victims on Fox News. Essentially the leader of the free world is basing his policy on what he sees on the TeeVee...

[KathyS]

You realize that tens of thousands of Syrian children have already died in this civil war, right? What is so special about these particular children that requires unilateral US military action with no congressional debate or authorization? And where is your proof that Assad's forces were even responsible for this attack? I've seen none so far. Even more troubling, Russian personnel are working side-by-side with Assad's forces, meaning this strike could possible injure or kill Russians. Do you have any idea what that would mean for US-Russian relations that are already fraught with peril?


Of course I know about children murdered before this, but unfortunately our previous president lacked the b@lls to follow through on just about anything.
Just a bunch of threats.

We don't know what Trump told Congress, do we? Regarding Russia, the missiles launched tonight targeted Syria's stash of weapons, not it's people.

Trump is doing what we elected him to do, and for once, we have a president that follows through on his promises.

[Ethereal]

That's a bit of a stretch.

Reports are that his change of heart comes from seeing pictures of the victims on Fox News. Essentially the leader of the free world is basing his policy on what he sees on the TeeVee...
Trump has been accused of being Putin's puppet for months now. What better way for him to prove that he's not by attacking Assad's forces?

[Common Sense]

Of course I know about children murdered before this, but unfortunately our previous president lacked the b@lls to follow through on just about anything.
Just a bunch of threats.

We don't know what Trump told Congress, do we? Regarding Russia, the missiles launched tonight targeted Syria's stash of weapons, not it's people.

Trump is doing what we elected him to do, and for once, we have a president that follows through on his promises.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8m-UpgXUAA7chj.jpg

[Mister D]

His critics share a large portion of the blame. No doubt his decision was informed by the months of anti-Russian hysteria and conspiracy theories. This might be his dumb way of proving that he's not Putin's boyfriend.
But reports (i.e. Trump himself) suggest he was moved by what he saw on the "teevee".

[Mister D]

Trump has been accused of being Putin's puppet for months now. What better way for him to prove that he's not by attacking Assad's forces?
But now Common Sense takes Trump at his word. lol

[MisterVeritis]

Just heard this. Honestly, at first I was shocked- how long has it been since the U.S. followed through on crossing the red line? After the shock has worn off, I support Trump on this. It's only going to take a little bit of stretching our muscles for other countries to believe we mean what we say.
Trump will certainly get a lot of flack for this, but frankly, after seeing the sweet faces of those dead Syrian children, I'm good with Trump's decision.
I do not support Trump on this.

[Common Sense]

Trump has been accused of being Putin's puppet for months now. What better way for him to prove that he's not by attacking Assad's forces?

Perhaps, but that's psychotic if true.

The quick about face on his position on Syria makes me think his change in policy is a knee jerk reaction to a situation he knows very little about.

I think he sees this as some bold decisive act. I hope it's not the beginning of some trigger happy policy shift.

[MisterVeritis]

Trump is doing what we elected him to do, and for once, we have a president that follows through on his promises.
I cannot recall Trump promising war with Syria.

This is bad.

[Ethereal]

Of course I know about children murdered before this, but unfortunately our previous president lacked the b@lls to follow through on just about anything.

Just a bunch of threats.

Plenty of children have died in Syria since Trump became the president. So what's so special about these ones?


We don't know what Trump told Congress, do we?

We know the congress did not vote to authorize this act of war, which is what is required under the constitution that conservatives claim to love so much.


Regarding Russia, the missiles launched tonight targeted Syria's stash of weapons, not it's people.

You know there are no Syrian or Russian personnel at the airfield they attacked? How?


Trump is doing what we elected him to do, and for once, we have a president that follows through on his promises.

Trump promised to stop getting involved in regime change operations and to concentrate on America first. By attacking Assad's forces, he is actually breaking his promise.

And where is your proof that Assad's forces are responsible?

[Common Sense]

Just a week or so ago Spicer said that Assad was just a "reality we have to accept".

Now Trump sees these horrible images (that I guess he missed the first time around) and his policy has shifted 180. It only illustrates that he knows nothing more about Syria than he sees while he's laying in bed watching his PVR'd Fox and Friends.

[Ethereal]

Perhaps, but that's psychotic if true.

The quick about face on his position on Syria makes me think his change in policy is a knee jerk reaction to a situation he knows very little about.

I think he sees this as some bold decisive act. I hope it's not the beginning of some trigger happy policy shift.
Democrats and Republicans alike have been pressuring Trump to take a tougher approach with regards to Syria and Russia. It seems he's taken them up on the offer.

[Common Sense]

I cannot recall Trump promising war with Syria.

This is bad.
He actually promised quite the opposite.

[Common Sense]

Democrats and Republicans alike have been pressuring Trump to take a tougher approach with regards to Syria and Russia. It seems he's taken them up on the offer.

I don't think that's what it is.

"“That attack on children yesterday had a big impact on me. Big impact. That was a horrible, horrible thing,” he said (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-syria-chemical-attack_us_58e52face4b0fe4ce087845e). “And I’ve been watching it and seeing it, and it doesn’t get any worse than that. And I have that flexibility, and it’s very, very possible, and I will tell you, it’s already happened, that my attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much.”

[Crepitus]

Wonder if he checked with Vladimir first? If not he could be in the doghouse.

[Mister D]

Wonder if he checked with Vladimir first? If not he could be in the doghouse.
Exhibit A.

[Mister D]

I don't think that's what it is.

"“That attack on children yesterday had a big impact on me. Big impact. That was a horrible, horrible thing,” he said (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-syria-chemical-attack_us_58e52face4b0fe4ce087845e). “And I’ve been watching it and seeing it, and it doesn’t get any worse than that. And I have that flexibility, and it’s very, very possible, and I will tell you, it’s already happened, that my attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much.”
lol

[MisterVeritis]

Trump has no right to take us to war with Syria. Impeach him.

[Ethereal]

Just a week or so ago Spicer said that Assad was just a "reality we have to accept".

Now Trump sees these horrible images (that I guess he missed the first time around) and his policy has shifted 180. It only illustrates that he knows nothing more about Syria than he sees while he's laying in bed watching his PVR'd Fox and Friends.
You have to view his actions in context. He's been subject to endless attacks on his loyalty and his patriotism and this was his chance to prove to his critics that's he not Putin's puppet or Assad's protector. In a way, this is EXACTLY what Trump's critics have been pressuring him to do.

[Mister D]

You have to view his actions in context. He's been subject to endless attacks on his loyalty and his patriotism and this was his chance to prove to his critics that's he not Putin's puppet or Assad's protector. In a way, this is EXACTLY what Trump's critics have been pressuring him to do.

That's reasonable position and probably correct.

[Common Sense]

Trump has no right to take us to war with Syria. Impeach him.
To be fair to Trump ( I can't believe I just said that), the US has been in a defacto state of war with Assad for some time. From supplying weapons to covert oppertions, the US has had boots on the ground in small numbers fighting both Assad's forces and ISIS. I don't know that it's an impeachable offence. Perhaps it is, I don't know.

[Ethereal]

I don't think that's what it is.

"“That attack on children yesterday had a big impact on me. Big impact. That was a horrible, horrible thing,” he said (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-syria-chemical-attack_us_58e52face4b0fe4ce087845e). “And I’ve been watching it and seeing it, and it doesn’t get any worse than that. And I have that flexibility, and it’s very, very possible, and I will tell you, it’s already happened, that my attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much.”
And you believe that?

[Mister D]

And you believe that?
Seriously.

[Common Sense]

You have to view his actions in context. He's been subject to endless attacks on his loyalty and his patriotism and this was his chance to prove to his critics that's he not Putin's puppet or Assad's protector. In a way, this is EXACTLY what Trump's critics have been pressuring him to do.

So once again we aren't supposed to believe the actual words the man says? Obama was judged on every utterance, but Trump gets a free pass?

It's pure speculation to think that Trump is doing this as a PR campaign and to counter the Russia rumours. Again, if true, that's a psychotic move. Certainly people died in these attacks.

[Ethereal]

Wonder if he checked with Vladimir first? If not he could be in the doghouse.
This must sting a little bit for you. Trump has gone further than any other president in challenging Putin with this strike. That's going to make it a lot harder to paint him as some kind of Putin puppet without calling into question past presidents like Obama who backed off his "red line" and who told the Russians he would have "more flexibility" after his election.

[decedent]

How will missiles help? Assad attacked defenseless, innocent civilians. Unless those missiles were to take out Assad, this attack is just for show.



He actually promised quite the opposite.

Trump also said the President should attack Syria without congressional approval. I have a feeling he didn't, but we'll see.

[Ethereal]

Trump has no right to take us to war with Syria. Impeach him.
That is what would happen if the constitution were obeyed. Sadly, it is not.

[Common Sense]

And you believe that?

No you're right. Trump is all about nuance and carefully worded speech. He never says what comes to his mind.

[Adelaide]

This must sting a little bit for you. Trump has gone further than any other president in challenging Putin with this strike. That's going to make it a lot harder to paint him as some kind of Putin puppet without calling into question past presidents like Obama who backed off his "red line" and who told the Russians he would have "more flexibility" after his election.

I am going to put on my tin foil hat for a moment and suggest that it is possible this was cleared with Russia so there wouldn't be personnel at the base and to smooth the way, so to speak. If I were Russia, I'd put my heads up and say "Whatevs" after the heart-breaking pictures of dead children.

[Adelaide]

I am going to put on my tin foil hat for a moment and suggest that it is possible this was cleared with Russia so there wouldn't be personnel at the base and to smooth the way, so to speak. If I were Russia, I'd put my heads up and say "Whatevs" after the heart-breaking pictures of dead children.
CNN just said the US warned Russia with "deconfliction".

[Ethereal]

So once again we aren't supposed to believe the actual words the man says? Obama was judged on every utterance, but Trump gets a free pass?

You have me very confused right now.


It's pure speculation to think that Trump is doing this as a PR campaign and to counter the Russia rumours. Again, if true, that's a psychotic move. Certainly people died in these attacks.

I agree, it is speculation. But it's speculation buttressed by reason.

[KathyS]

How different the outcome if Obama had followed through on his "crossing the red line" threat. Trump DID follow through and I'm glad.

[Ethereal]

Seriously.
Trump is the guy who said we should kill the families of terrorists and who has authorized numerous military operations that caused children to die, but he's all broken up about that gas attack...

[exotix]

How different the outcome if Obama had followed through on his "crossing the red line" threat. Trump DID follow through and I'm glad.I thought Trumpf hated Syrians ?

[Ethereal]

No you're right. Trump is all about nuance and carefully worded speech. He never says what comes to his mind.
Or perhaps he is just lying.

[Mister D]

Trump is the guy who said we should kill the families of terrorists and who has authorized numerous military operations that caused children to die, but he's all broken up about that gas attack...
That was a great example of the vacuous emotionalism Western pols engage in and I'm supposed to believe it was heartfelt and revealing? lol

[Ethereal]

I am going to put on my tin foil hat for a moment and suggest that it is possible this was cleared with Russia so there wouldn't be personnel at the base and to smooth the way, so to speak. If I were Russia, I'd put my heads up and say "Whatevs" after the heart-breaking pictures of dead children.
I hope they coordinated with the Russians. It would be madness not to.

[Common Sense]

I do concede that anything is possible, but it would be a Machiavellian move to say create a false flag attack that creates a scenario where Assad could be attacked just to improve Trump's image. Even if the attack was actually done by Assad and Trump took advantage of it to attack Assad to quash rumours of Russian dealings...it would be a pretty fucked up thing to do. Frankly I think Trump is horrible, but not that horrible, nor that cunning.

Trump is clearly someone who is impetuous and tends to act without a lot of forethought. I honestly believe he changed his policy due to the images he witnessed and the media coverage this attack received.

Either scenario doesn't speak well of his character or judgement.

[Mister D]

I hope they coordinated with the Russians. It would be madness not to.
I'd imagine they did and the Russians really did say whatevs.

[Common Sense]

How different the outcome if Obama had followed through on his "crossing the red line" threat. Trump DID follow through and I'm glad.

Trump set no red line. The Trump admin said just a week ago that Assad was someone we just had to live with.

[Ethereal]

How different the outcome if Obama had followed through on his "crossing the red line" threat. Trump DID follow through and I'm glad.

Yet you have no proof that Assad's forces are responsible for this attack, nor can you explain how this will actually solve anything.

[Common Sense]

Reports are that 50 Tomahawk cruise missiles were launched.

[Ethereal]

I do concede that anything is possible, but it would be a Machiavellian move to say create a false flag attack that creates a scenario where Assad could be attacked just to improve Trump's image. Even if the attack was actually done by Assad and Trump took advantage of it to attack Assad to quash rumours of Russian dealings...it would be a pretty $#@!ed up thing to do. Frankly I think Trump is horrible, but not that horrible, nor that cunning.

Trump is clearly someone who is impetuous and tends to act without a lot of forethought. I honestly believe he changed his policy due to the images he witnessed and the media coverage this attack received.

Either scenario doesn't speak well of his character or judgement.
Nobody is suggesting that Trump was involved in a false flag. The rebels could have done that entirely on their own with the knowledge that Trump would be pressured to attack Assad.

[exotix]

Reports are that 50 Tomahawk cruise missiles were launched.59

[Ethereal]

I'd imagine they did and the Russians really did say whatevs.
That's what I'm hoping, but I have to wonder if the hawks in the Pentagon would have settled for a purely symbolic attack.

[KathyS]

Yet you have no proof that Assad's forces are responsible for this attack, nor can you explain how this will actually solve anything.

And there is no proof Assad isn't responsible for the attacks. Past actions certainly point the finger at him however. He's a monster.

[Ethereal]

Regardless, this is unlawful. Only the congress can authorize an act of war against a sovereign nation and Trump had no such authorization.

[Ethereal]

And there is no proof Assad isn't responsible for the attacks.

There's no proof that Trump doesn't have a secret dungeon where he keeps naked children shackled to the wall either. I guess that means he's a pedophile until proven otherwise.


Past actions certainly point the finger at him however.

No they don't. The last sarin attack was never conclusively attributed to Assad. In fact, many experts and journalists believe the rebels were responsible: Whose sarin? (https://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin)


He's a monster.

So what? Is the US government responsible for making the world free of monsters?

[Starman]

Trump-haters would harshly condemn him if he did nothing.
They harshly condemn him now that he has sent a very powerful message, where Bathhouse Barry did no more than say he was "Drawing a red line in the sand."
No matter what a Republican does, treacherous, traitorous Democrats attack him, even in war. It started with Vietnam, when Democrats gave aid and comfort to the enemy. Sickening. Despicable.

Reagan said "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this (Berlin) wall." And Gorbachev did just that!

Then traitorous Leftists said Reagan had nothing to do with it.
Reagan had so much clout that the day he was inaugurated, Iran released its American hostages.

Democrats should start showing some common sense, and support our country and decency, instead of simply attacking for pure partisan politics.

[Common Sense]

Trump-haters would harshly condemn him if he did nothing.
They harshly condemn him now that he has sent a very powerful message, where Bathhouse Barry did no more than say he was "Drawing a red line in the sand."
No matter what a Republican does, treacherous, traitorous Democrats attack him, even in war. It started with Vietnam, when Democrats gave aid and comfort to the enemy. Sickening. Despicable.

Reagan said "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this (Berlin) wall." And Gorbachev did just that!

Then traitorous Leftists said Reagan had nothing to do with it.
Reagan had so much clout that the day he was inaugurated, Iran released its American hostages.

Democrats should start showing some common sense, and support our country and decency, instead of simply attacking for pure partisan politics.

That's rich...

You call for backing the president while calling Obama a derogatory name.

If you want to see decency, it starts at home.

[exotix]

Trump-haters would harshly condemn him if he did nothing.
They harshly condemn him now that he has sent a very powerful message, where Bathhouse Barry did no more than say he was "Drawing a red line in the sand."
No matter what a Republican does, treacherous, traitorous Democrats attack him, even in war. It started with Vietnam, when Democrats gave aid and comfort to the enemy. Sickening. Despicable.

Reagan said "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this (Berlin) wall." And Gorbachev did just that!

Then traitorous Leftists said Reagan had nothing to do with it.
Reagan had so much clout that the day he was inaugurated, Iran released its American hostages.

Democrats should start showing some common sense, and support our country and decency, instead of simply attacking for pure partisan politics.Well right now we're waiting for the damage assessment ... hopefully the wind was blowing the Sarin and VX Gas in the opposite direction of population centers when Sarin and VX gas storage facilities were hit.

Other than that Trumpf just put big holes in runways with hundreds of millions of dollars of U.S. Armament.

[Common Sense]

I'm thinking a major airforce base was hit.

[Ethereal]

Trump-haters would harshly condemn him if he did nothing.

I don't hate Trump and have defended him repeatedly on other issues. On this issue, he is 100% in the wrong for a multitude of reasons.

1. There is no proof that Assad's forces were responsible for this attack.
2. Congress did not authorize Trump to attack Assad's forces as the constitution requires.
3. Attacking Assad's forces helps AQ and ISIS.
4. Assad's forces pose no threat to America.
5. This attack will do absolutely nothing to end the war in Syria or to stop Assad from killing civilians.

Do I need to go on?

[Safety]

I knew before I clicked on the thread what the comments would be like. Those that were belittling Obama for being a war hawk and causing Syria, would be licking Trumps heels for be "tough". I can respectively say that there is pretty much only one member that has been consistent regardless who was in office. ^^

[Ethereal]

Rand Paul: Trump needed Congressional authorization for military action (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/327736-rand-paul-trump-needed-congressional-authorization-for-military)

Glad to see there are still some politicians who care about the constitution.

[del]

i hope the syrians stocked up on aspirin...

[Crepitus]

His critics share a large portion of the blame. No doubt his decision was informed by the months of anti-Russian hysteria and conspiracy theories. This might be his dumb way of proving that he's not Putin's boyfriend.

Thats kinda doubtful

[NapRover]

I'm glad to see Trump's red line is real, not imaginary. Hopefully Assad will take notes.

[exotix]

I'm glad to see Trump's red line is real, not imaginary. Hopefully Assad will take notes.Yes ? Explain why you're glad.

[texan]

[QUOTE=Ethereal;1987608]This is absolutely crazy and illegal. The congress provided Trump with no authorization to attack a sovereign country and its armed forces and there is a possibility that this strike will kill or injure Russian troops stationed alongside the Syrians. Trump is playing with all our lives and for what? Because a few dozen Syrians MIGHT have been killed by some chemicals in a war where hundreds of thousands of people have already died?[/QUOTE

Yawn. Grow a pair! You also have no details and likely wrong.

[del]

can't quote successfully

offers life advice

[Common Sense]

I'm glad to see Trump's red line is real, not imaginary. Hopefully Assad will take notes.

What red line?

[del]

we need to be more involved in the middle east because we've got a surplus of healthy young men and women.

[Bethere]

Tail wagging the dog. He desperately wants to change the subject.

[Crepitus]

This must sting a little bit for you. Trump has gone further than any other president in challenging Putin with this strike. That's going to make it a lot harder to paint him as some kind of Putin puppet without calling into question past presidents like Obama who backed off his "red line" and who told the Russians he would have "more flexibility" after his election.

He probably checked in first.

[Crepitus]

cnn just said the us warned russia with "deconfliction".

bam!

[NapRover]

Obama had an imaginary line, i.e. You cross it and we back off, embarrassed, and we become the laughingstock of the world as our enemies fear us less and our allies trust and respect us less. You wanna gas babies? Trump sends you the bill.

[texan]

Authorization of a nuclear or strategic attackEdit (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Command_Authority&action=edit&section=1)

Only the President can direct the use of nuclear weapons by U.S. armed forces, including the Single Integrated Operational Plan (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Integrated_Operational_Plan) (SIOP). While the President does have unilateral authority as commander-in-chief to order that nuclear weapons be used for any reason at any time, the actual procedures and technical systems in place for authorizing the execution of a launch order requires a secondary confirmation under a two-man rule (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-man_rule), as the President's order is subject to secondary confirmation by the Secretary of Defense. If the Secretary of Defense does not concur, then the President may in his sole discretion fire the Secretary. The Secretary of Defense has legal authority to approve the order, but cannot veto it.[1] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Command_Authority#cite_note-1)[2] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Command_Authority#cite_note-2)[3] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Command_Authority#cite_note-Veto3-3)


Pretty easy search there is a legal procedure and he can do this so please stop with the BS.

Please note "or strategic attack"
WIKi for the link Nazis

[Common Sense]

Nuclear attack? Wut?

[exotix]

Obama had an imaginary line, i.e.

You cross it and we back off, embarrassed, and we become the laughingstock of the world as our enemies fear us less and our allies trust and respect us less.

You wanna gas babies? Trump sends you the bill.Really ? Example please.

[Crepitus]

I do concede that anything is possible, but it would be a Machiavellian move to say create a false flag attack that creates a scenario where Assad could be attacked just to improve Trump's image. Even if the attack was actually done by Assad and Trump took advantage of it to attack Assad to quash rumours of Russian dealings...it would be a pretty fucked up thing to do. Frankly I think Trump is horrible, but not that horrible, nor that cunning.

Trump is clearly someone who is impetuous and tends to act without a lot of forethought. I honestly believe he changed his policy due to the images he witnessed and the media coverage this attack received.

Either scenario doesn't speak well of his character or judgement.

Putin is.

[NapRover]

Really ? Example please.

You know the answer.

[Crepitus]

Reports are that 50 Tomahawk cruise missiles were launched.

At nearly $2 million each that's a whole lotta money up in smoke.

[exotix]

You know the answer.Well, in his usual nonsensical rants ... Trumpf decreed this strike was done in the interest of our National Security ... surely your red-line rants explains this.

[Hal Jordan]

I do concede that anything is possible, but it would be a Machiavellian move to say create a false flag attack that creates a scenario where Assad could be attacked just to improve Trump's image. Even if the attack was actually done by Assad and Trump took advantage of it to attack Assad to quash rumours of Russian dealings...it would be a pretty fucked up thing to do. Frankly I think Trump is horrible, but not that horrible, nor that cunning.

Trump is clearly someone who is impetuous and tends to act without a lot of forethought. I honestly believe he changed his policy due to the images he witnessed and the media coverage this attack received.

Either scenario doesn't speak well of his character or judgement.
While a lot of the time Trump is impetuous and "off the cuff", do not underestimate him when it comes to the con. Yes, he may well have no conscience.

[Hal Jordan]

Trump-haters would harshly condemn him if he did nothing.
They harshly condemn him now that he has sent a very powerful message, where Bathhouse Barry did no more than say he was "Drawing a red line in the sand."
No matter what a Republican does, treacherous, traitorous Democrats attack him, even in war. It started with Vietnam, when Democrats gave aid and comfort to the enemy. Sickening. Despicable.

Reagan said "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this (Berlin) wall." And Gorbachev did just that!

Then traitorous Leftists said Reagan had nothing to do with it.
Reagan had so much clout that the day he was inaugurated, Iran released its American hostages.

Democrats should start showing some common sense, and support our country and decency, instead of simply attacking for pure partisan politics.
It's not just liberals or Democrats condemning this. Earlier in the thread, a well-known conservative member condemned the attack. Multiple unaffiliated have condemned the attack.

As an aside, if that's what you believe about the Iran hostage crisis, you still have much to learn about it.

[Hal Jordan]

I'm glad to see Trump's red line is real, not imaginary. Hopefully Assad will take notes.

Trump never gave a line, just struck.

[Hal Jordan]

we need to be more involved in the middle east because we've got a surplus of healthy young men and women.
Gotta lower the population somehow!

[del]

Gotta lower the population somehow!

indeed

the grievously wounded, both physically and emotionally, are just the cherry on top

[NapRover]

Well, in his usual nonsensical rants ... Trumpf decreed this strike was done in the interest of our National Security ... surely your red-line rants explains this.
So you don't agree that this was in our national interest? I do think it's in our interest to act on violators who we warn plainly that there will be consequences for crossing red lines. You'd think that assad would have learned this after saddam got deposed and hung for doing it.

[NapRover]

Trump never gave a line, just struck.

I think obama established the line, Trump enforced it. Trump wouldn't have acted without the war crime of assad.

[Hal Jordan]

So you don't agree that this was in our national interest? I do think it's in our interest to act on violators who we warn plainly that there will be consequences for crossing red lines. You'd think that assad would have learned this after saddam got deposed and hung for doing it.
How would it be in our national interest? Even if you accept the "acting on violators we warn", Trump never gave a warning. That doesn't seem to be his style anyway.

[NapRover]

How would it be in our national interest? Even if you accept the "acting on violators we warn", Trump never gave a warning. That doesn't seem to be his style anyway.
I'm glad he didn't give a warning. Hopefully the rest of the world takes note, we don't stand by and watch while you gas babies.

[exotix]

So you don't agree that this was in our national interest? I do think it's in our interest to act on violators who we warn plainly that there will be consequences for crossing red lines. You'd think that assad would have learned this after saddam got deposed and hung for doing it.
I think obama established the line, Trump enforced it. Trump wouldn't have acted without the war crime of assad.

I'm glad he didn't give a warning. Hopefully the rest of the world takes note, we don't stand by and watch while you gas babies.Next up, Assad has 2 days to leave Syria ...




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdTrSm-FIfo

[Crepitus]

Exhibit A.

Looks like he did.

[NapRover]

Next up, Assad has 2 days to leave Syria ...




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdTrSm-FIfo
First we remind them of the "dead or alive" posters of the old west.
Do you think he's going to keep on gassing babies? I bet he quits.

[Crepitus]

This must sting a little bit for you. Trump has gone further than any other president in challenging Putin with this strike. That's going to make it a lot harder to paint him as some kind of Putin puppet without calling into question past presidents like Obama who backed off his "red line" and who told the Russians he would have "more flexibility" after his election.

Except that It looks like he did check with Vladimir first

[KathyS]

Trump never gave a line, just struck.

He notified the Russians, and others before we struck. Unlike Obama, he refused to give 4 months notice before attacking.

[Common Sense]

This situation has just become more complex. Certainly ISIS is celebrating this action.

[Hal Jordan]

First we remind them of the "dead or alive" posters of the old west.
Do you think he's going to keep on gassing babies? I bet he quits.
I'll take that bet.

Coming to you from the depths of inner space.

[KathyS]

This situation has just become more complex. Certainly ISIS is celebrating this action.
I hope ISIS realizes this president is serious about keeping his promises. They may celebrate right now, but contrary to their rhetoric, most are afraid of dying. Why else would their leaders go into hiding when challenged? Wipe 'em out and send them to the 72 virgins they wish for- I hope those "virgins" aren't what they expected, lol.

[NapRover]

This situation has just become more complex. Certainly ISIS is celebrating this action.
Maybe, if they're still alive.

[Common Sense]

I hope ISIS realizes this president is serious about keeping his promises. They may celebrate right now, but contrary to their rhetoric, most are afraid of dying. Why else would their leaders go into hiding when challenged? Wipe 'em out and send them to the 72 virgins they wish for- I hope those "virgins" aren't what they expected, lol.

What promise? Just a week ago the Trump administration said Assad was someone we had to live with.

[NapRover]

I hope ISIS realizes this president is serious about keeping his promises. They may celebrate right now, but contrary to their rhetoric, most are afraid of dying. Why else would their leaders go into hiding when challenged? Wipe 'em out and send them to the 72 virgins they wish for- I hope those "virgins" aren't what they expected, lol.
Speaking of that, what an incentive for muslim virgins to go to allah-so they can join a rank of 71 other virgin sex slaves for eternity? Something's got to be lost in the translation.

[del]

it's nice to get confirmation on my theory about trump voters

[NapRover]

it's nice to get confirmation on my theory about trump voters
If only hillary hadn't been so corrupt. You could have been deputized in their foundation!

[KathyS]

Speaking of that, what an incentive for muslim virgins to go to allah-so they can join a rank of 71 other virgin sex slaves for eternity? Something's got to be lost in the translation.
My wish is that when they meet their maker, members of ISIS discover THEY are one of the anticipated 72 virgins. Ahhhhh, I can hear their screams now.....music to my ears.

[KathyS]

What promise? Just a week ago the Trump administration said Assad was someone we had to live with.
And the first thing Assad did after hearing that, was to gas his own people. Hope he's learned his lesson.

[exotix]

LOL


McCain and Graham said that Thursday's "credible step" now required the Trump administration to "finally learn the lessons of history and ensure that tactical success leads to strategic progress.

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/john.../06/id/783053/ (http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/john-mccain-lindsey-graham-syria-attack/2017/04/06/id/783053/)

"For that, he deserves the support of the American people," McCain, of Arizona, and Graham, who represents South Carolina, said in a joint statement.

Trump's decision was "unlike the previous administration," they said.

"We salute the skill and professionalism of the U.S. Armed Forces who carried out tonight's strikes in Syria.

"Acting on the orders of their commander-in-chief, they have sent an important message the United States will no longer stand idly by as Assad, aided and abetted by [President Vladimir] Putin's Russia, slaughters innocent Syrians with chemical weapons and barrel bombs," they said.



http://res.cloudinary.com/luvckye9s/image/upload/v1491538283/1_f4lu6q.png

[Common Sense]

And the first thing Assad did after hearing that, was to gas his own people. Hope he's learned his lesson.

Assad has gassed his own people before. At that time Trump was against military action.

[Tahuyaman]

What promise? Just a week ago the Trump administration said Assad was someone we had to live with.


Has Trump called for regime change?

[Tahuyaman]

Assad has gassed his own people before. At that time Trump was against military action.


So, where do you stand? Are you opposed or supportive of an American action here?

[Common Sense]

So, where do you stand? Are you opposed or supportive of an American action here?
While I think his action was impetuous, the target was legitimate. But it's not that simple. Attacking Assad like this can have drastic consequences with regards to the fight against ISIS and the balance of power in the region.

What I'm criticizing is Trump's hypocrisy and shortsightedness.

[Hal Jordan]

Considering everything involved, I think this action went against American interests.

Coming to you from the depths of inner space.

[The Xl]

This is fucking nuts.

[The Xl]

At the end of the day, it's all the same shit, no matter who's elected, they're all puppets of the military industrial complex, and nothing will ever change. I wanted to believe Trump had a spine, but apparently not.

[Crepitus]

Speaking of that, what an incentive for muslim virgins to go to allah-so they can join a rank of 71 other virgin sex slaves for eternity? Something's got to be lost in the translation.

17795

[Crepitus]

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/04/trumps-line-syria/

[Ethereal]

Yawn. Grow a pair! You also have no details and likely wrong.

There has no been congressional authorization. That is a fact.

[Ethereal]

So you don't agree that this was in our national interest?

Of course not. Assad poses no threat to America. And destabilizing his government helps AQ and ISIS. Not only is this not in our national interest, it goes directly against it.

[Ethereal]

I hope ISIS realizes this president is serious about keeping his promises. They may celebrate right now, but contrary to their rhetoric, most are afraid of dying. Why else would their leaders go into hiding when challenged? Wipe 'em out and send them to the 72 virgins they wish for- I hope those "virgins" aren't what they expected, lol.

Trump just did ISIS a big favor by attacking Assad. Assad's secular government is the biggest obstacle between ISIS and a Syrian caliphate.

[Ethereal]

And the first thing Assad did after hearing that, was to gas his own people. Hope he's learned his lesson.
Except you have no idea if Assad was actually responsible. You cannot offer one shred of proof implicating him or his army.

[The Xl]

There is no proof that Assad actually did This, and even if he did, so the fuck what? It's not an American security or defense issue.

[Ethereal]

Chemical weaponry carries some kind of strange emotional weight to it. I have no idea why. Far more people have been killed by conventional weaponry.

[The Xl]

Chemical weaponry carries some kind of strange emotional weight to it. I have no idea why. Far more people have been killed by conventional weaponry.

It makes no fucking sense. I'm tired of all of this countrys bullshit. We're all slaves to a bunch of psychopath criminals and their isn't a damn thing we can do about it. We're all just plebs in this sick game of globalist chess. We're not much different than slaves, really.

[Ethereal]

It makes no $#@!ing sense. I'm tired of all of this countrys bull$#@!. We're all slaves to a bunch of psychopath criminals and their isn't a damn thing we can do about it. We're all just plebs in this sick game of globalist chess. We're not much different than slaves, really.
True. It's best to just look to your own small sphere of influence and do your best to maintain and improve it. The big picture is basically out of our control and has been for a long time. There might be some hope when our generation comes into their own politically, but I wouldn't count on it.

[The Xl]

True. It's best to just look to your own small sphere of influence and do your best to maintain and improve it. The big picture is basically out of our control and has been for a long time. There might be some hope when our generation comes into their own politically, but I wouldn't count on it.

There is no hope. The power structure will just rig elections, create false flags, make shit up, whatever they have to do to keep power and forward their sick and criminal agenda. And the majority of the idiotic public will eat it up.

[Ethereal]

There is no hope. The power structure will just rig elections, create false flags, make $#@! up, whatever they have to do to keep power and forward their sick and criminal agenda. And the majority of the idiotic public will eat it up.
Hard to argue with that. They have their fangs sunk deep into the flesh of the American body politic.

[Ethereal]

At least John McCain and Lindsey Graham are happy tonight.

[AeonPax]

`
`
Don't expect any protests from the warmongering democrats and republicans. They both support the barbaric acts of Trump. Pukes.

[Starman]

That's rich...You call for backing the president while calling Obama a derogatory name.If you want to see decency, it starts at home.

Like "RAPE MELANIA"? Like that?

17796

Like "I'M GOING TO ASSASSINATE TRUMP"? Like that?

17797

Don't you Leftists EVER talk down to ANYBODY about "decency." You promote the butchering of 1,000,000 innocent, unborn babies
every year. Fathers have "no choice" whether they will pay child support for 18 years, or never get to hold their own child.
Grandparents, however capable and loving they might be, NEVER get a "choice" either. And black unborn babies are killed at 6 times the proportion of whites. The overwhelming majority of abortion mills are in minority neighborhoods. Indecent.

[Peter1469]

The attacks were targeting equipment and facilities that facilitate the use of the chemial weapons.


How will missiles help? Assad attacked defenseless, innocent civilians. Unless those missiles were to take out Assad, this attack is just for show.




Trump also said the President should attack Syria without congressional approval. I have a feeling he didn't, but we'll see.

[Peter1469]

Assuming the US has concrete evidence that Assad conducted the chemical attacks, this is OK so long as this is a limited punitive strike.

And it seems as if Russia was warned ahead of time. Which is good on two levels: (1) they didn't deliberately allow Russian troops to be killed and used against the US, and (2) they don't appear to have warned Syria which indicates they are not going to escalate over this. We may have asked the Russian's ahead of time a hypothetical question to gage their response.

If it is the precursor for invasion and occupation, that is a problem.


So you don't agree that this was in our national interest? I do think it's in our interest to act on violators who we warn plainly that there will be consequences for crossing red lines. You'd think that assad would have learned this after saddam got deposed and hung for doing it.

[NapRover]

Assuming the US has concrete evidence that Assad conducted the chemical attacks, this is OK so long as this is a limited punitive strike.

And it seems as if Russia was warned ahead of time. Which is good on two levels: (1) they didn't deliberately allow Russian troops to be killed and used against the US, and (2) they don't appear to have warned Syria which indicates they are not going to escalate over this. We may have asked the Russian's ahead of time a hypothetical question to gage their response.

If it is the precursor for invasion and occupation, that is a problem.

Well, we do already have troops there, right? I don't believe the Potus would have acted on a hunch. The potus doesn't need to prove anything to me, if he says he got proof, he gets the benefit of the doubt. Most of the reaction I've seen from ex-military is supportive.
I wasn't holding my breath waiting in the left's doing the wave over it.

[Green Arrow]

Of course I know about children murdered before this, but unfortunately our previous president lacked the b@lls to follow through on just about anything.
Just a bunch of threats.

We don't know what Trump told Congress, do we? Regarding Russia, the missiles launched tonight targeted Syria's stash of weapons, not it's people.

Trump is doing what we elected him to do, and for once, we have a president that follows through on his promises.
You elected him to violate the constitution and put U.S. national security at risk just to prove we have balls?

[Archer0915]

U.S. launches missiles at Syrian military targets (https://www.washingtonpost.com/regional/?cache=false&reload=true)

Breaking news

But was it Assad? Last time it was not him, proven! I believe that, at most, it was a rogue element within his regime or even some of his enemies trying to set him up.

[Green Arrow]

At the end of the day, it's all the same shit, no matter who's elected, they're all puppets of the military industrial complex, and nothing will ever change. I wanted to believe Trump had a spine, but apparently not.
Maybe next time you'll trust me.

[Archer0915]

Some questions that leads to a theory... Idlib was a rebel held town but what strategic importance is it? It is not a port city, it has the M4 and M5 running through it but it is easily avoided and does not prevent port access.

What tactical advantage was expected to be gained from the attack? Considering it did no real damage and whoever was behind the attack knew it would get a harsh response.

What parties stand to gain from this attack? Everyone but Assad.

My theory is a party that has much to gain from the Assad removal did this.

[Common Sense]

Conspiracy theories aside...maybe if congress had approved strikes on Assad's regime when Obama requested approval, this recent chemical attack could have been prevented. But at that time Reps and some Dems didn't approve. Neither did Trump.

[Archer0915]

Conspiracy theories aside...maybe if congress had approved strikes on Assad's regime when Obama requested approval, this recent chemical attack could have been prevented. But at that time Reps and some Dems didn't approve. Neither did Trump.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-22270455

Removing Assad will just cause more issues.

[NapRover]

You elected him to violate the constitution and put U.S. national security at risk just to prove we have balls?

Your question is moot, since neither of your assertions occurred.

[Green Arrow]

Your question is moot, since neither of your assertions occurred.

Destabilizing the Assad government in Syria harms our national security and Trump did not get congressional authorization to strike Syrian government targets as the constitution demands.

[Green Arrow]

Conspiracy theories aside...maybe if congress had approved strikes on Assad's regime when Obama requested approval, this recent chemical attack could have been prevented. But at that time Reps and some Dems didn't approve. Neither did Trump.
We would have been in an even worse situation.

[Casper]

Like "RAPE MELANIA"? Like that?

17796

Like "I'M GOING TO ASSASSINATE TRUMP"? Like that?

17797

Don't you Leftists EVER talk down to ANYBODY about "decency." You promote the butchering of 1,000,000 innocent, unborn babies
every year. Fathers have "no choice" whether they will pay child support for 18 years, or never get to hold their own child.
Grandparents, however capable and loving they might be, NEVER get a "choice" either. And black unborn babies are killed at 6 times the proportion of whites. The overwhelming majority of abortion mills are in minority neighborhoods. Indecent.
Nice Rant, care to comment on the actual Topic?

[Bo-4]

Well, let's hope this one went better than Trump's failed raid in Yemen and 300 dead innocents in Mosul.

Hopefully he is FINALLY listening to adults with actual military experience.

I'm okay with the action taken yesterday but BE DONE .. GTF OUT of the Middle East (and the rest of the world) --

Can someone name a single country we've meddled with in past 50 years where we didn't make things worse?

[Docthehun]

"Hey Mr. Trump; Assad here. Just one question. Is it okay if we just go back to bombing civilians with barrel bombs and conventional weapons?"

[Bethere]

"Hey Mr. Trump; Assad here. Just one question. Is it okay if we just go back to bombing civilians with barrel bombs and conventional weapons?"

Hey, mr. Trump! Thanks for leaving the runway intact!

[Tahuyaman]

So, where do you stand? Are you opposed or supportive of an American action here?


While I think his action was impetuous, the target was legitimate. But it's not that simple. Attacking Assad like this can have drastic consequences with regards to the fight against ISIS and the balance of power in the region.

What I'm criticizing is Trump's hypocrisy and shortsightedness.

why can't you liberal types actually answer a question?

[Bo-4]

"Hey Mr. Trump; Assad here. Just one question. Is it okay if we just go back to bombing civilians with barrel bombs and conventional weapons?"

ORRR :wink:

"Hey Mr. Trump; Assad here. Just one question. Now that you've shown SUCH concern for children and tiny little babies - will you drop your Muslim ban and let them in before i gas or bomb more of to hell?"

[Bo-4]

Yo Doc - start a "Hey Mr Trump - Assad here ..." thread in Pub - we're off to a rollicking start!

[Tahuyaman]

Conspiracy theories aside...maybe if congress had approved strikes on Assad's regime when Obama requested approval, this recent chemical attack could have been prevented. But at that time Reps and some Dems didn't approve. Neither did Trump.

I'm not completely positive on this, but I don't remember Obama actually asking the Congress for their approval of a military action in Syria. I do remember him floating the idea of going to the congress, but he couldn't even get his own party loyalists behind the idea.

I don't remember him actually following through and seeking their authorization. Maybe I'm wrong.

[Ransom]

Maybe next time you'll trust me.
You're argument is wrong, thus, why would anyone trust you?

This is the oddest statement. This is the next time and Constitutional.

What are they teaching in our schools these days, geez.

[exotix]

This is fun ... let's bomb bomb bomb Iran next ... but not Russia.

[Ransom]

"Hey Mr. Trump; Assad here. Just one question. Is it okay if we just go back to bombing civilians with barrel bombs and conventional weapons?"

No, it's not. And we've condemned those prior to Jan 20th as well. What President Trump is explaining here is that your civil war has caused untold suffering, a refugee crisis, and destabilized several regimes not to mention giving an Islamic State a region in which to thrive and grow. However, the red line actually f'n makes a difference with my Administration, if you're going to use chemical or biological weapons, weapons such as nerve agents, you're not going to be around to see any outcome in Syria. The US will get involved. This had precedent, you might note yesterday was 100 years since we entered World War I. A war that makes current strife abroad look like Romper Room, a war so devastating it witnessed the destruction of the entire Ottoman and Austrian Empires. But even during that wholesale destruction, mustard gas and other nerve agents used was considered a war crime.

Chemical or biological and certainly nuclear weaponry are considered a war crime internationally and here in the United States. Trump reacting to these weapons being used isn't condoning previous tactics used by Assad and your assertion is thus ridiculous. Another red flag....is who thanked it. Hello.

[Ransom]

ORRR :wink:

"Hey Mr. Trump; Assad here. Just one question. Now that you've shown SUCH concern for children and tiny little babies - will you drop your Muslim ban and let them in before i gas or bomb more of to hell?"

His initial response and policy were safe zones set up in Syria, a policy also supported by your candidate as well.

Oops again.

[Ransom]

Conspiracy theories aside...maybe if congress had approved strikes on Assad's regime when Obama requested approval, this recent chemical attack could have been prevented. But at that time Reps and some Dems didn't approve. Neither did Trump.

It was Obama's red line that wasn't acted on correct?

[Ethereal]

Conspiracy theories aside...

Of course. Because anyone who questions the "official" version of events (for which no proof has been offered) is pushing a "conspiracy theory". It couldn't be rational skepticism or logical analysis, could it?


...maybe if congress had approved strikes on Assad's regime when Obama requested approval, this recent chemical attack could have been prevented. But at that time Reps and some Dems didn't approve. Neither did Trump.
Obama said he didn't need congressional approval to strike Assad, so that excuse simply doesn't wash. He didn't strike Assad because it was revealed to him by intelligence analysts that Assad's forces probably were not behind the attacks.

[exotix]

This is fun ... let's bomb bomb bomb Iran next ... but not Russia.'I told Trump I was proud of him'


~ Lindsey Graham



http://theweek.com/speedreads/691010...ake-down-assad (http://theweek.com/speedreads/691010/sen-lindsey-graham-calls-7000-american-troops-syria-take-down-assad)




http://res.cloudinary.com/luvckye9s/image/upload/v1491589770/4_m0o0ev.png

[Ethereal]

Your question is moot, since neither of your assertions occurred.
That's EXACTLY what happened. Trump did not obtain congressional authorization and he attacked a base where Russian personnel were known to be stationed. And he did this without presenting a shred of proof to the public that his rationale for attacking Syrian forces was legitimate. Trump is a moron and a criminal.

[MisterVeritis]

Of course I know about children murdered before this, but unfortunately our previous president lacked the b@lls to follow through on just about anything.
Just a bunch of threats.

We don't know what Trump told Congress, do we? Regarding Russia, the missiles launched tonight targeted Syria's stash of weapons, not it's people.

Trump is doing what we elected him to do, and for once, we have a president that follows through on his promises.
What is important is the lack of Congressional authorization, a declaration of war against Syria. President Trump violated the Constitution. I will ask my representative to impeach Trump.

[MisterVeritis]

To be fair to Trump ( I can't believe I just said that), the US has been in a defacto state of war with Assad for some time. From supplying weapons to covert operations, the US has had boots on the ground in small numbers fighting both Assad's forces and ISIS. I don't know that it's an impeachable offense. Perhaps it is, I don't know.
President Trump used the US military to kill Syrian people and to break their things. He did so without a Congressional declaration of war. Trump must be impeached.

[MisterVeritis]

No, it's not. And we've condemned those prior to Jan 20th as well. What President Trump is explaining here is that your civil war has caused untold suffering, a refugee crisis, and destabilized several regimes not to mention giving an Islamic State a region in which to thrive and grow. However, the red line actually f'n makes a difference with my Administration, if you're going to use chemical or biological weapons, weapons such as nerve agents, you're not going to be around to see any outcome in Syria. The US will get involved. This had precedent, you might note yesterday was 100 years since we entered World War I. A war that makes current strife abroad look like Romper Room, a war so devastating it witnessed the destruction of the entire Ottoman and Austrian Empires. But even during that wholesale destruction, mustard gas and other nerve agents used was considered a war crime.

Chemical or biological and certainly nuclear weaponry are considered a war crime internationally and here in the United States. Trump reacting to these weapons being used isn't condoning previous tactics used by Assad and your assertion is thus ridiculous. Another red flag....is who thanked it. Hello.
Trump broke the Constitution. Trump has to go. He must be impeached.

[Peter1469]

Conspiracy theories aside...maybe if congress had approved strikes on Assad's regime when Obama requested approval, this recent chemical attack could have been prevented. But at that time Reps and some Dems didn't approve. Neither did Trump.

I am not sure why Obama asked, except because he knew that they would say no.

[Peter1469]

Destabilizing the Assad government in Syria harms our national security and Trump did not get congressional authorization to strike Syrian government targets as the constitution demands.

How does the War Powers Act fit in here?

[MisterVeritis]

I am not sure why Obama asked, except because he knew that they would say no.
We have reached the end of the nation when a President's default position is to find a way around the Constitution. Trump's impeachment will send a very strong diplomatic signal that Presidents are not above the law.

[Peter1469]

Well, let's hope this one went better than Trump's failed raid in Yemen and 300 dead innocents in Mosul.

Hopefully he is FINALLY listening to adults with actual military experience.

I'm okay with the action taken yesterday but BE DONE .. GTF OUT of the Middle East (and the rest of the world) --

Can someone name a single country we've meddled with in past 50 years where we didn't make things worse?

The Yemen raid was not a failure. We got tons of actionable intel from it and have used it.

The civilians dead in Mosul was not a failure. They were collateral damage.

[MisterVeritis]

I'm not completely positive on this, but I don't remember Obama actually asking the Congress for their approval of a military action in Syria. I do remember him floating the idea of going to the congress, but he couldn't even get his own party loyalists behind the idea.

I don't remember him actually following through and seeking their authorization. Maybe I'm wrong.
Obama went to Congress. He did not get approval. The House did not vote on it.

[Peter1469]

Hey, mr. Trump! Thanks for leaving the runway intact!

Right. The attack was diplomacy- of a sort. It was not a decisive military attack.

[Peter1469]

We have reached the end of the nation when a President's default position is to find a way around the Constitution. Trump's impeachment will send a very strong diplomatic signal that Presidents are not above the law.

Presidents typically use military force prior to a Congressional declaration of war. But limited force.

This attack was more diplomacy than anything else.

[MisterVeritis]

Presidents typically use military force prior to a Congressional declaration of war. But limited force.

This attack was more diplomacy than anything else.
Sixty million dollars worth of cruise missiles is an act of war. Trump unilaterally declared war on Syria. In my mind, Trump is a criminal.

Would you view a comparable attack on Maryland as diplomacy?

[Green Arrow]

How does the War Powers Act fit in here?

I don't believe it's constitutionally justified.

[Newpublius]

We have reached the end of the nation when a President's default position is to find a way around the Constitution. Trump's impeachment will send a very strong diplomatic signal that Presidents are not above the law.


How does the War Powers Act fit in here?

Read the WPA and the sibsequent caselaw, interesting stuff. From WPA on every President has unilaterally initiated military force. Every one. Its 100% wrong, but simply out its the way the US does it now. Trump not a duck out of line on that one.

[MisterVeritis]

Assuming the US has concrete evidence that Assad conducted the chemical attacks, this is OK so long as this is a limited punitive strike.

And it seems as if Russia was warned ahead of time. Which is good on two levels: (1) they didn't deliberately allow Russian troops to be killed and used against the US, and (2) they don't appear to have warned Syria which indicates they are not going to escalate over this. We may have asked the Russian's ahead of time a hypothetical question to gage their response.

If it is the precursor for invasion and occupation, that is a problem.
I frequently agree with you, Peter. Can you point out the Constitutional provision that allows a President to wage war as long as it is limited and punitive? I have looked twice. I did not see it. Article 2 is only a page and a half.

[MisterVeritis]

Read the WPA and the sibsequent caselaw, interesting stuff. From WPA on every President has unilaterally initiated military force. Every one. Its 100% wrong, but simply out its the way the US does it now. Trump not a duck out of line on that one.
The War Powers act does not trump the Constitution. Nor can it be a pocket declaration of war. I suppose I did live to see the end of the US. I failed to recognize it.

[Tahuyaman]

I'm not completely positive on this, but I don't remember Obama actually asking the Congress for their approval of a military action in Syria. I do remember him floating the idea of going to the congress, but he couldn't even get his own party loyalists behind the idea.

I don't remember him actually following through and seeking their authorization. Maybe I'm wrong.


I researched this. Obama never did seek congressional approval of conducting a military action in Syria.

It seems as though most members in both parties suspected that Obama simply was looking for a scape goat to accept the blame if things went poorly. Even people from his own party did not trust that he would accept accountability for his decision. He knew that so he decided to eat his red line in the sand and move on.

[Tahuyaman]

The War Powers act does not trump the Constitution. Nor can it be a pocket declaration of war. I suppose I did live to see the end of the US. I failed to recognize it. but it isn't in violation of the constitution either.

[Newpublius]

The War Powers act does not trump the Constitution. Nor can it be a pocket declaration of war. I suppose I did live to see the end of the US. I failed to recognize it.

I agree but it is what it is, you're essentially arguing every President who administers a single Medicare payment should be impeached.....They went to court with Reagan and Grenada, see how the court ruled.....the doctrine IS established. We both agree the paradigm should be different, in reality its not

[MisterVeritis]

I researched this. Obama never did seek congressional approval of conducting a military action in Syria.

It seems as though most members in both parties suspected that Obama simply was looking for a scape goat to accept the blame if things went poorly. Even people from his own party did not trust that he would accept accountability for his decision. He knew that so he decided to eat his red line in the sand and move on.
You researched poorly. Obama did ask for authorization. The House never voted on it. The Russians agreed to take Assad's chemicals off his hands.

[MisterVeritis]

I agree but it is what it is, you're essentially arguing every President who administers a single Medicare payment should be impeached.....They went to court with Reagan and Grenada, see how the court ruled.....the doctrine IS established. We both agree the paradigm should be different, in reality its not
I am done with this. The Constitution no longer matters. The Executive can do whatever he wants including murdering another nation's citizens and you yawn. It is clear to me when even the more conservative people no longer care the battle has been lost.

[Tahuyaman]

You researched poorly. Obama did ask for authorization. The House never voted on it. The Russians agreed to take Assad's chemicals off his hands.. You are misinformed. Clearly, You get something planted in your head and the facts do not matter.

[MisterVeritis]

. You are misinformed.
No. I am not. But we are done.

[Peter1469]

I frequently agree with you, Peter. Can you point out the Constitutional provision that allows a President to wage war as long as it is limited and punitive? I have looked twice. I did not see it. Article 2 is only a page and a half.

I don't see it as waging war. It is diplomacy. If Trump wants to remove Assad from power with force, that would require a declaration of war (or authorization for the us of force).

[MisterVeritis]

I don't see it as waging war. It is diplomacy. If Trump wants to remove Assad from power with force, that would require a declaration of war (or authorization for the us of force).
Would you feel the same if Syria lobbed 59 1000 pound bombs at the airport closest to your home?

Diplomacy? Bullshit. War. And now we are in it. Or do you believe wars are one-sided? Trump started a war on a whim against Syria. And we will pay a price.

[Ethereal]

I don't see it as waging war.

Launching missiles at another country isn't war?

[Peter1469]

Would you feel the same if Syria lobbed 59 1000 pound bombs at the airport closest to your home?

Diplomacy? Bullshit. War. And now we are in it. Or do you believe wars are one-sided? Trump started a war on a whim against Syria. And we will pay a price.We won't pay a price if we don't try to get rid of Assad.

Now we can give him a carrot. [Not that the CIA would allow that.]

[Peter1469]

Launching missiles at another country isn't war?

It is definitely approaching that line.

War is diplomacy by other means.

If, and that is a big if on more than one count, this was only a punitive strike to emphasis that gassing civilians is wrong, I am OK with that.

[MisterVeritis]

We won't pay a price if we don't try to get rid of Assad.

Now we can give him a carrot. [Not that the CIA would allow that.]
When Japan attacked our naval base at Pearl Harbor was that an act of diplomacy? Was our response to the Japanese unprovoked attack unusual? How is the Japanese sneak attack different from Trump's sneak attack? In both cases, the aggressor attacked a nation with which it was not at war.

[Peter1469]

When Japan attacked our naval base at Pearl Harbor was that an act of diplomacy? Was our response to the Japanese unprovoked attack unusual? How is the Japanese sneak attack different from Trump's sneak attack? In both cases, the aggressor attacked a nation with which it was not at war.

The attack on Pearl was a deliberate decapitation strike so Japan could dominate the Pacific.

This Trump strike was militarily insignificant. It was a logical follow-on to being ignored after telling Assad to stop gassing civilians. (Assuming there was gassing)

[Tahuyaman]

Would you feel the same if Syria lobbed 59 1000 pound bombs at the airport closest to your home?

Diplomacy? Bull$#@!. War. And now we are in it. Or do you believe wars are one-sided? Trump started a war on a whim against Syria. And we will pay a price.


If an airfield near my home was used as a base for air operations which were employing chemical weapons against other civilians, I'd probably have mixed feelings about that airfield being attacked.

[Tahuyaman]

It is definitely approaching that line.

War is diplomacy by other means.

If, and that is a big if on more than one count, this was only a punitive strike to emphasis that gassing civilians is wrong, I am OK with that.

I oppose this type type of action, but if it does not lead to us become bogged down in another un-winnable conflict I can move on from this one.

[MisterVeritis]

The attack on Pearl was a deliberate decapitation strike so Japan could dominate the Pacific.

This Trump strike was militarily insignificant. It was a logical follow-on to being ignored after telling Assad to stop gassing civilians. (Assuming there was gassing)
No difference is the answer you are searching for.

Americans responded to the japanese sneak attack with bitter, long lived anger. Should we expect less from the Syrians?

[MisterVeritis]

If an airfield near my home was used as a base for air operations which were employing chemical weapons against other civilians, I'd probably have mixed feelings about that airfield being attacked.
Fraud.

Never mind.

[Tahuyaman]

Fraud



how so?

If I lived in a country which was "ruled" by a tyrant who attacked his own citizenry with chemical weapons, I'd hope that him and his government gets exactly what they deserve.

[Ransom]

No difference is the answer you are searching for.

Americans responded to the japanese sneak attack with bitter, long lived anger. Should we expect less from the Syrians?

Not an appropriate analogy. Bashar Assad an Iranian puppet. Facilitator of terrorism. A civil war ongoing in that nation has resulted in a terror organization.....marching across the Levant destabilizing regional governments. The crisis has brought world powers into the fray such as Russia and NATO nation Turkey. It involves terror organizations Hezbollah and Hamas. And we have a precedent on weapons of mass destruction.

MisterV.....does the world ignore this chemical attack? Does the West ignore this attack, or the ISIS terror group established within?

[MisterVeritis]

No difference is the answer you are searching for.

Americans responded to the Japanese sneak attack with bitter, long-lived anger. Should we expect less from the Syrians?

Not an appropriate analogy.
So you believe the Syrians will not respond to our act of war by waging war on the US at times and places of their choosing? What makes you believe such a thing?


Bashar Assad an Iranian puppet. Facilitator of terrorism. A civil war ongoing in that nation has resulted in a terror organization.....marching across the Levant destabilizing regional governments. The crisis has brought world powers into the fray such as Russia and NATO nation Turkey. It involves terror organizations Hezbollah and Hamas. And we have a precedent on weapons of mass destruction.
while all of that is nice it is also not relevant

MisterV.....does the world ignore this chemical attack? Does the West ignore this attack, or the ISIS terror group established within?
If it was important enough to take this nation to war with Syria it was important enough for the President to make the case to Congress and to ask for a war declaration. We did not vote for a King.

Do you believe Trump is King of the World? I did not see the World responding to the alleged use of chemical weapons. I saw Trump expend American treasure to do practically nothing. But people are always jubilant at the beginning of a long war, aren't they?

If Trump wants to be King of the World then he needs to resign as our President.

[Peter1469]

Not an appropriate analogy. Bashar Assad an Iranian puppet. Facilitator of terrorism. A civil war ongoing in that nation has resulted in a terror organization.....marching across the Levant destabilizing regional governments. The crisis has brought world powers into the fray such as Russia and NATO nation Turkey. It involves terror organizations Hezbollah and Hamas. And we have a precedent on weapons of mass destruction.

MisterV.....does the world ignore this chemical attack? Does the West ignore this attack, or the ISIS terror group established within?


Assad is not a facilitator of terrorism. That is an uneducated comment.

[exotix]

LOL


http://res.cloudinary.com/luvckye9s/image/upload/v1491661969/15_aiaitl.png



http://res.cloudinary.com/luvckye9s/image/upload/v1491662000/16_kmowvi.png

[KathyS]

What is important is the lack of Congressional authorization, a declaration of war against Syria. President Trump violated the Constitution. I will ask my representative to impeach Trump.
Trump's order to fire on Assad's chemical stash focused only on that, not the entire country of Syria. Congressional approval wasn't needed.
Question: did you ask your representative to impeach Obama for the numerous times he violated the Constitution?

[MisterVeritis]

Trump's order to fire on Assad's chemical stash focused only on that, not the entire country of Syria. Congressional approval wasn't needed.
Question: did you ask your representative to impeach Obama for the numerous times he violated the Constitution?

There is nothing in the Constitution that allows a president start little wars on his own.

Yes. I asked my representative to impeach Obama when Obama violated the Constitution. Obama is not relevant. You are deflecting.

What gives our president the right to start a small war on his own, on a whim? The Constitution does not give presidents the right to start wars. There was nothing time urgent. He was not coming to the aid of US forces in contact with Syrian forces. I read last night the ships practiced for two days to prepare to ripple fire the 60 cruise missiles. Trump had time to make his case to the Congress.

Your opening statement is foolish. When you start a war with a country it is with the entire country.

[Ransom]

Assad is not a facilitator of terrorism. That is an uneducated comment.

Just another erred Pete statement in an ocean of them concerning the ME.
Wrong again, Peter, and way wrong this time. Might you give me a short summary of Assad's relationship with Hezbollah just as an example.

Oops.

[Ransom]

Peter1469

The answers to all the following questions is yes, are you disputing that? You seem to jump on an obvious error just for the sake of the argument. My only conclusion when you make these statements are that they are purposeful error to elicit conversations.

Does Assad's Syria provide extensive material, financial, training, and logistical assistance to Hezbollah?
Has Assad's Syria supplied Hezbollah with million$ each year?
After Hezbollah’s 2006 war with Israel, as an example, did Assad's Syria rearm Hezbollah with vastly expanded and more sophisticated weaponry?
Does most of the support from Iran to Hezbollah flow through Syria, making it the primary hub in Iran’s power in the Levant?

[MisterVeritis]

The answers to all the following questions is yes, are you disputing that? You seem to jump on an obvious error just for the sake of the argument. My only conclusion when you make these statements are that they are purposeful error to elicit conversations.

Does Assad's Syria provide extensive material, financial, training, and logistical assistance to Hezbollah?
Has Assad's Syria supplied Hezbollah with million$ each year?
After Hezbollah’s 2006 war with Israel, as an example, did Assad's Syria rearm Hezbollah with vastly expanded and more sophisticated weaponry?
Does most of the support from Iran to Hezbollah flow through Syria, making it the primary hub in Iran’s power in the Levant?
Trump did not start his splendid little war by arguing it was an extension of the global war on terror. Even then Trump should have gone to the Congress with his evidence and asked for a declaration of war against Syria. Trump does not have the right to commit the nation to wars of his choosing. That responsibility rests with the entire Congress.

[Archer0915]

Just another erred Pete statement in an ocean of them concerning the ME.
Wrong again, Peter, and way wrong this time. Might you give me a short summary of Assad's relationship with Hezbollah just as an example.

Oops.
Give us your breakdown. Do you understand the dynamic over there? Consider this... Hezbollah is kept on a tight leash over there and they are kept in an area where they can be watched. Do you think for a second that if they were a real threat that they would still be there? Hezbollah helps track the crazies and generally the only ones killed are Hezbollah! They keep getting more weak minded lemmings and they get those lemmings killed.

[Tahuyaman]

Assad is not a facilitator of terrorism. That is an uneducated comment.

He is, but not on the scale of some others like Iran for instance.

[Archer0915]

He is, but not on the scale of some others like Iran for instance.

facilitator: a person responsible for leading or coordinating the work of a group,as one who leads a group discussion:Each committee will meet with its facilitator.
I would compare him to our own leadership in many large messy cities and states. Bill de Blasio, Rahm Emanuel or Jerry Brown.

[Peter1469]

I don't believe so.


He is, but not on the scale of some others like Iran for instance.