CNBC: US military has launched more than 50 missiles aimed at Syria: NBC News

Status
Not open for further replies.
They used the same communications line that's been in place since Russia and the US have both been operating in Syria.
Yeah. People need to remember that we have US troops on the ground there.

And with all the other players in the region its important to know and coordinate positions.

Having US troops there means that attacks on chemical weapon stores or degrading of the capability to launch chemical weapon attacks can also be described as a defensive measure to protect our troops.
 
Relevant to this - what are the odds that Putin leaves office in Russia like...ever? Have they thoroughly rigged their elections, or what's the deal over there?

Because I would feel a lot more comfortable without that fucker in power.
 
Can't violate the Constitution if you never read it. /rollsafe.jpg

"While we all condemn the atrocities in Syria, the United States was not attacked," Paul said in a statement shortly after reports that the U.S. had launched more than 50 Tomahawk cruise missiles against an airfield in Syria.

"The President needs congressional authorization for military action as required by the Constitution, and I call on him to come to Congress for a proper debate," Paul said. "Our prior interventions in this region have done nothing to make us safer, and Syria will be no different."
 
No, THEY are in deep shit.

Because Russia was supposed to be monitoring and preventing Assad from using Chemical weapons.

Yet there they are, on the same base the Chemical attacks were launched from.

I didn't consider this. This is a very damning realization for a county that sits on the UN Security Council.
 
No, THEY are in deep shit.

Because Russia was supposed to be monitoring and preventing Assad from using Chemical weapons.

Yet there they are, on the same base the Chemical attacks were launched from.

A war with Russia would not end well and would be no walk in the park. It would be WWIII and likely nuclear. That is what I meant by deep shit.
 
Heh....

Josh Jordan‏
@NumbersMuncher

High profile Republicans and conservative entertainers looking at their 2013 tweets saying that Obama shouldn't take action in Syria.

3:54 AM - 7 Apr 2017
omgwtf.gif

https://twitter.com/NumbersMuncher/status/850180014234628104
 
I didn't consider this. This is a very damning realization for a county that sits on the UN Security Council.

Wont matter, I mean think about it. They say its America+Saudia Arabia staging all this stuff to start a revolution and that Assad is innocent, or at least thats Assads story which Russia endorses
 
This isn't hypocrisy.

To be honest, I don't the comparisons are fair. The situation in Syria since the original red line has deteriorated, and whilst people can argue about the response to a chemical attack, it is unlikely they'd be as reserved or cautious in responding to another chemical attack, especially when they may question whether they could have avoided it had they acted years ago.

What kind of half-assed spin is this? This is one of the greatest examples of hypocrisy you will ever see.

Syria was attacking its citizens at the time using Chlorine Gas. Obama approached congress for approval of a strike, but was denied by these people supporting this recent strike that occurred without their approval. Obama's goal was for regime change through political means via Geneva talks. Tillerson is now pushing for the same thing.

Trump, despite shouting against this sort of action for five years, just went along with Obama's Syrian strategy... and Republican members of congress are suddenly changing their tune.

Thank you.
 
Need more info, but if this base was in fact where the chemical attack was launched from and casualties are minimal, I think I am mostly ok with this.
 
What happened the last gas attack? What did the world do about it? Actual question.

The US and Russia agreed on a deal to get Assad to give up any chemical weapon stockpiles.

This is really why this is such an embarrassment for everyone involved (especially the Russians) because everyone signed off on this to avoid a conflict.

If they can't be trusted to do it then the only option left is air strikes on known locations.
 
Look I'm all for the outing of Trump and the crumbling of his administration by way of impeachment/imprisonment, but I think that's the wrong thing to be thinking about at a time like this.

Why? It (being a part of the suspicious relationship between Trump specifically and Russia) is certainly a factor in all of this. That Russian troops were present at this base and may be included among the casualties definitely raises questions about the continued nature of that relationship. Let's not pretend like one of the biggest questions being discussed right now is how this effects Trump's perceived relationship with Russia, and how Russia retaliates, if at all.

It's certainly not the ONLY thing I'm thinking about, as evidenced by...well, every other post I've made in this thread.
 
Need more info, but if this base was in fact where the chemical attack was launched from and casualties are minimal, I think I am mostly ok with this.

I mean, I was okay with Obama proposing increased military action in 2013 so to back away now would seem a reaction to Trump being the one to do it instead of Obama.

I do believe that the facts on the ground of changed since then however, so I'm waiting for the fallout to decide if this is a "good" thing or not.
 
The goal, which was Obama's goal years ago, is that the Syrian citizens are safer and al-Assad is less capable of doing this kind of attack again.

Ted Cruz is saying this is the result of Obama's failed policy, when it was the republican congress that denied him the authority to do this kind of strike years ago. Trump did it unilaterally, and they're now praising him.
When Obama was facing military action in 2013, can you guess which senator made this statement: “We should be focused on defending the United States of America. That’s why young men and women sign up to join the military, not to, as you know, serve as Al Qaeda’s air force.”

This page is going to look very interesting when more people speak their mind on Trump's actions compared to when Obama was faced with the same issue.
 
I mean, I was okay with Obama proposing increased military action in 2013 so to back away now would seem a reaction to Trump being the one to do it instead of Obama.

I do believe that the facts on the ground of changed since then however, so I'm waiting for the fallout to decide if this is a "good" thing or not.

i would have also had more good faith in obama acting as a rational commander in chief than the fuckwad we have now
 
This seems like a measured response, not a prelude to war. Regardless of Republican hypocrisy and the fact that Trump is a huge piece of shit, this was the right move.
 
why are people acting like all these tweets from 4 years are some huge GOTCHA. things have happened between now and then.

The only thing that happened that is relevant for those people is that before there was a democrat President, now there's a Republican one.
It is a pretty good GOTCHA, since it tells that those pieces of shit don't have any actual ideas or values of their own, they just tout out the party line over everything else.
 
This page is going to look very interesting when more people speak their mind on Trump's actions compared to when Obama was faced with the same issue.
Richard Blumenthal
DConnecticut
“I look forward to participating in the coming debate and hearing additional details and facts on a framework and strategy for an appropriate U.S. response."
Angus King
IMaine
"I will continue to examine the facts and hear the arguments before arriving at a conclusion that I believe will best serve the interests of the United States.
Mary L. Landrieu
DLouisiana
"I will carefully examine the facts in the coming days as Congress debates what the appropriate action is."
If only JFK was around to have someone ghostwrite a Profiles in Courage sequel.
 
i would have also had more good faith in obama acting as a rational commander in chief than the fuckwad we have now

Yeah. People need to realize that Trump did this because he thinks he's right and without any approval from anyone else. He does this all the time, but now on a much bigger stage with missiles. He's dangerous.
 
no we don't because nobody has the ability to launch nerve gas other than government forces.

jog on

Maybe I'm drunk and confused, but wasn't Meus' question about motive? Not the whole "uh oh, maybe ISIS did it" business.
 
What happened the last gas attack? What did the world do about it? Actual question.

Last "big" gas attack (there have been multiple minor gas attacks since) ended with an agreement to dismantle Syria's chemical weapons. It ended with said weapons being placed in a huge ass ship and neutralized at sea. Russia helped.
 
CNN LATER:

We're getting reports that 752 puppies have died so far in Syria, the rest have joined various opposition groups and the State Department now worries that they will be radicalized.

Isis did issue a Fatwa calling for the killing of American dogs and puppies in 2015...
 
Also, a hugely fucking important thing to keep in mind throughout all of this:

Trump did not have congressional approval.

Let's not let that get swept under the rug.
 
The Department of Defense is in good hands with Mattis. That's why this is getting bipartisan support. He knows how to respond.

Trump by himself couldn't figure out shit, but in military matters Mattis is there to bail him out.

Edit: This.

Trump doesn't think. He's being led.
 
Russia Embarrassed? LMFAO. Russia does not give a flying shit about anything. After the Chemical Weapons were used the Hospitals treating the survivors were bombed. Russia has killed more people in Syria war than ISIS has.

If anything Russia is just looking at ways it can leverage the current situation to their advantage. Probably be willing to let Assad go as long as they are not forced to abandon their bases in Syria. Especially if it means Sanctions lifted and the hundreds of billions that will suddenly flow into the Russian economy.
 
Also, a hugely fucking important thing to keep in mind throughout all of this:

Trump did not have congressional approval.

Let's not let that get swept under the rug.

Congressional approval for military action has been basically non-existent for decades. In fact it was novel when Obama sought it for his proposed actions in Syria.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom