Russia and Syria
Be interesting to see how Trump and the UN address the nightmare of chemical weapons, Russia is obviously the wildcard in all this.
|
Trump says he's changing his attitude on Syria, Assad what where they before he changed we know he loves Strong men
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Thank you very much. Your Majesty, thank you for being with us today. Very much appreciate it. OMG what if Obama said that Maybe thats his flexibility |
Obama punted Syria (and many other things) to the next admin.
Lots of increasingly lousy options to chose from for the last and current admins |
Uh oh....... Trump just upped the ante. Launched a strike against Syria
|
So, question... Where is the "America First" in an air strike against a foreign military airfield in response to a foreign government's use of chemical weapons on their own people?
Don't get me wrong, I kind of agree that something needed to be done, but Trump basically said he was going to be making uncomfortable and non traditional decisions on the world stage to put America first in EVERY (not most, or when convenient) decision. I hope this ends up sending the right message and Russia and other world powers just let the punishment rain down... otherwise this feels like the beginning of some very anxious times for the world Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
50 cruise missiles 1 air base.. been saying he was dangerous and seems he cant take his own advice?
Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump Follow More The only reason President Obama wants to attack Syria is to save face over his very dumb RED LINE statement. Do NOT attack Syria,fix U.S.A. Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA - IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING! Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval. 2:14 PM - 29 Aug 2013 |
Where was the outrage when Barry drew the line in the sand and looked away?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
50-60 TLAMs will send a few messages. It won't cripple Assad but it will let him (and Norks / Iran) know he is not going to look the other way.
The world cannot let Chem use persist. Really bad options to choose from |
its all cool until they start shooting back.. I guess we should be thankful no Russian personal were killed that we know of
I am curious is our allies were informed of our intent why he acted so quickly ( putting on a show for the china's president ?) or was it to change the headlines about his administration not saying that use of force should never be used but acting Unilateral and with in the time frame Raises some red flags for me You put your right foot in You take your right foot out You put your right foot in And you shake it all about You do the hokey pokey And you turn yourself around That's what it's all about if it was that easy saw this post this AM on FB If you voted for Trump and you are glad he did this, you are just as stupid as the liberals. It's an obvious kneejerk reaction.. I was hoping the deep state and neocons wouldn't get to Mr. Trump. This is very disappointing if they did. |
This is the liberal gibberish I could have predicted considering the source. Damned if you do...or don't. I am not opposed, but not sure what motivated this attack. A sackless commentary that would have been spewed in some form regardless of aggression or lack there of.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Hopefully took out the planes that dropped the gas. Generally in favor of these types of actions but worried about mission creep, putting our soldiers at risk, etc.
But also indicative of the zigging and zagging on policies. |
Quote:
Allies were reportedly informed, Russia prepped (which of course means Assad knew) All in all, I don't think it was a bad response. And it showed there will be penalty for using Chem weapons, as there must be. |
Quote:
So while some of the people he is slaughtering are innocents who we all would like to help, others he is fighting are even worse than he is. As we learned in Iraq, if we just had him killed, there's a real chance that he could be replaced with someone a million times worse than he is. How do you deal with that? Beats me. My hope is that Trump sent Assad a message by firing a shot across the bow, the message being "as long as you are killing ISIS jihadists, we will tolerate quite a bit from you, but not chemical attacks on civilians, so knock it off or I'll kill you and take my chances". Politically, it also seems to reject the notion that Trump doesn't care about Syrian civilians, as well as the notion that Trump is working for Putin. |
This is what happens when you sign useless agreements with countries that have no inkling of following through. In 2013 President Obama signed an agreement with Russia to dispose of Syrians chemicals ... Trump just put a little backbone behind that agreement for once .
Iran might take heed with that message Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
So it would be fair (and logical) to presume that the arguments against this action are geared toward the fact that it was Trump and not the use of chemical weapons that people are opposed to?
That's what it seems.... |
Quote:
More like 80 deaths by bombs or chemical agent are not sure how one is worse than the other 59 missiles in response with out a coherent policy could easily lead to thousands of US troop in danger are 500 US KIA worth 80 ? I say NO |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
|
Hard to believe that things would not be better than they are today if the response was made when they first crossed the red line. It was only a matter of time before Assad started on Idlib, still a surprise he went for the chemicals.
|
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
I do find an irony that the GOP establishment is supporting this one but weren't singing the same song in 2013. Not that I think this was the wrong decision...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
|
Quote:
But if Obama so chose, he could have done it himself (as Trump did). As we know well, Obama was quite at ease bypassing congress when he felt like it. |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
See, I voted for him, but I don't think he was infallable... Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Nothing to upset the Iranians of course
|
|
Quote:
President Obama abruptly changed course on Saturday and postponed a military strike against the Syrian government in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack so he could seek authorization first from a deeply skeptical Congress. On Aug. 28 of that year, then-Rep. Cory Gardner, Rep. Scott Tipton, and Rep. Mike Coffman signed on to a House letter to Obama that urged the president to “consult and receive authorization from Congress before ordering the use of U.S. military force in Syria.” “Engaging our military in Syria when no direct threat to the United States exists and without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution,” the letter said. The letter the three Colorado Reps. signed onto said they viewed the bypass of Congress when ordering military strikes as “unconstitutional.” “Tonight’s actions in Syria come after Assad’s horrific actions against his own people,” he said in a statement. “America must show leadership and I’m thankful for what appears to be an effective response by our military.” Seems republicans love wearing Flops Flops when it moves them |
Quote:
When Trump keeps his promise re Assad and goes around Congress and possibly around the Constitution in order to do so, his action is questionable. When Obama disregards Congress and the Constitution (which he did several times) in order to keep his promises, he is brilliant, and gets things done in spite of Congress and in spite of the Constitution. (which he could have done when Assad crossed his "red line). So, when Obama and Trump act in similar ways, for Obama it's win, win. For Trump, it's lose, lose. Nice. |
Quote:
Seems your creating a narrative thats not there .. some may think that .. not I I am just pointing out that Most conservatives wanted him (Obama) to seek congressional approval..prior to mil action in syria as did Trump as seen in his many tweets .. but conservatives as a whole do not no seek such requirement today |
a conservative view.....
"Why is Donald Trump making war on Syria? Congress ought to ask him to explain that, and also to explain from where he believe he derives the authority to do so without legal authorization." Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...egal-pointless |
Quote:
As for me (I've already stated a few times that I'm more of a classical liberal with a "conservative" bent), there are arguments both ways whether Trump should have gotten Congressional approval to send missiles to Syria. Or, for that matter whether Obama would have needed to do so. I am mixed in opinion on it. The "message" sent by firing the Tomahawks sounds about right. But the notion of eventually removing Assad or weakening his ability to fight does not appeal to me in light of what would fill the vacuum. I made the little "narrative" as you called it just to point out some apparent contradictions in politicized reactions to things Trump does, or doesn't do. In this case, Trump specifically said he had a change of mind and heart when he saw the videos of dying and dead babies. Whether you believe that or not, he did say it. Maybe you don't think he should be allowed to change his mind. Maybe you don't trust someone who does rather than rigidly sticking to former positions. He also did specifically say a few times that he is flexible. So you chime in about how he called for congressional approval before but didn't seek it in this instance. He may well have checked with his legal advisers who may have said that conditions and precedent didn't require the approval to do what he wanted in the cautious way (warning ahead) he did it. And maybe Obama really didn't want to bomb Assad and meekly acceded to Congress as a way to cop out of having to enforce his red line. Don't know. But all of what has happened, action and inaction, point out a stark difference in making threats and enforcing them. And the politicized reactions to the difference. That's all the little "narrative" was about. |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
The sneaky word DECLARED was not noticed or not paid attention to by the American public nor by the media. No doubt the deception by the Obama administration was intentional. All we paid attention to was ALL the weapons, not to the more accurate all of the DECLARED weapons. The deal with Iran and the supposed cessation of its nuclear program was a similar kind of deception. But with that, it was more widely understood that the deal was temporary, at best. And that Obama, as he did not with his Syrian "red line," would not enforce the Iranian deal. And Iran shortly after started breaking the agreement, and no retribution against it was made. |
Quote:
Exactly. There's areal chance he could be replaced with someone a million times worse. It's a very, very challenging situation. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:07 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com