US Strikes Airbases in Syria

[PUB78 1,362]

1 hour ago, AUUSN said:

The same happened in 2013. Then he wanted to stay out of it but now is ready to get into a conflict with Russia? What changed?

It is said that he was "born again". If so, then his mind and heart  have been changed.  He does seems somewhat of a different person than in the campaign.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

1 minute ago, SaturdayGT said:

  Does anyone think that ISIS could be the instigator in all of this? Seems like a long shot as much...or rather, as little as I know.  It just seems like it would work out in ISIS favor if they could have framed Assad for the chem attack somehow to provoke a response with us to stir things up with us and Russia. Im hoping this notion can be easily struck down... 

ISIS would have had to have somehow faked all the data showing the aircraft launches and routes from that base to the area attacked.  That's just not plausible.

[SaturdayGT 719]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

ISIS would have had to have somehow faked all the data showing the aircraft launches and routes from that base to the area attacked.  That's just not plausible.

I was leaning there, but the idea of it just gets me somehow.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

2 minutes ago, SaturdayGT said:

I was leaning there, but the idea of it just gets me somehow.

Had the chemical weapons been launched from the ground outside the city or detonated somehow from fixed locations within, that might work as a possible explanation.  But these were launched from aircraft and we have the chem trails and other traceable data showing where they came from.  It wasn't ISIS.  

There are three factions in Syria:  Assad, the rebels and ISIS.  And all of them are bad. Assad and the rebels can perpetrate evil all on their own without any ISIS help.

[alexava 6,973]

If we knew location of chemical weapons shouldn't we take them out anyway. As far as war grade weapons this attack seems bland. Maybe could be a ploy by any faction of this conflict. We have a lot of questions. So far I'm not against the strike but I will point out the orange mans hypocrisy. Which are piling up. 

[SaltyTiger 7,857]

8 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Yeah, a Dem was President then. Different rules.

I would think as President privy to more information than 2013 citizen Trump. Things change when you are the general manager.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

18 minutes ago, alexava said:

If we knew location of chemical weapons shouldn't we take them out anyway. As far as war grade weapons this attack seems bland. Maybe could be a ploy by any faction of this conflict. We have a lot of questions. So far I'm not against the strike but I will point out the orange mans hypocrisy. Which are piling up. 

We may have hit some of the facilities on that base that housed them.  But I'm also unsure as to the consequences of just bombing such a storehouse in terms of releasing the chemicals into the air and affecting surrounding areas.

[SaturdayGT 719]

32 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

We may have hit some of the facilities on that base that housed them.  But I'm also unsure as to the consequences of just bombing such a storehouse in terms of releasing the chemicals into the air and affecting surrounding areas.

I may be mistaken, but I had it in my mind that they had warheads specifically for chemical and biological sites, which can eliminate any chance they can be released. Not sure if that's something I picked up from something factual or just from some movie LOL

[AUDub 11,182]

5 minutes ago, SaturdayGT said:

I may be mistaken, but I had it in my mind that they had warheads specifically for chemical and biological sites, which can eliminate any chance they can be released. Not sure if that's something I picked up from something factual or just from some movie LOL

The Rock is not a documentary!

[Strychnine 1,803]

59 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Had the chemical weapons been launched from the ground outside the city or detonated somehow from fixed locations within, that might work as a possible explanation.  But these were launched from aircraft and we have the chem trails and other traceable data showing where they came from.  It wasn't ISIS.  

There are three factions in Syria:  Assad, the rebels and ISIS.  And all of them are bad. Assad and the rebels can perpetrate evil all on their own without any ISIS help.

 

I would say even that is too simplistic, as rebel forces are far from a cohesive group with the same goal.  They range from defecting Syrian military (least terrible) to Al-Nusra or Tahrir al-Sham (ISIS-esque terrible).

Personally, I am still not convinced that Assad is ultimately responsible, as ordering a chemical attack would have been an utterly idiotic move for him at this time.  It makes more sense for rebel-sympathetic elements in Syria's military to have done it to tarnish Assad further, than it does for Assad to have ordered it.  Assad knows that the main thing protecting his regime is Russia, and ordering chemical attacks is counter-productive to maintaining Russian support.  I have no doubt that Assad is perfectly capable of ordering it, but it makes no sense.  No real benefit to a chemical attack, and a tremendous amount of risk.  That is the kind of action that could be the catalyst to his downfall and eventual execution.  Assad would know that.

[SaturdayGT 719]

Just now, Bigbens42 said:

The Rock is not a documentary!

LOL!!!

[Strychnine 1,803]

1 minute ago, Bigbens42 said:

The Rock is not a documentary!

 

LIES!  The Rock and Red Dawn are real life!

[AUDub 11,182]

4 minutes ago, Strychnine said:

LIES!  The Rock and Red Dawn are real life!

My fellow Americans...this is why we can't have nice things.

[AU64 10,122]

Obama drew lines in the sand.....and then assured us that the chemical weapons were gone.  Could it be that he was snookered in that deal ...like it seems he was in the Iran deal too.   BO looked good to his supporters....but left some big problems for his successor...no matter who it might have been.  HC acknowledged that the strike was necessary which was interesting.

[RunInRed 16,484]

The real question for us now is, "then what?" ... It's easy to bomb something and pound your chest about American bravo.  Thinking through what comes next is the hard part.  How confident are you that Trump and team thought through this?

Quote

The problem remains: What is next? Syria is led by a brutal dictator who is guilty of war crimes. But it is also a sovereign country with powerful friends, including Russia and Iran.

Trump acted without consulting Congress, without clear legal authority and without any coordinated military action by our partners and allies.

 

President Obama did not move forward in 2013, even after stating that Syria using chemical weapons would cross a red line, without the support of Congress and the international community.

 

Friday morning, we are still learning about the specific impact on the ground -- whether there was collateral damage, that is, innocent lives lost -- and whether all of the targets were hit. We don't know how many more military strikes are planned. Nor are we likely to know in advance.

 

But one thing seems clear. We are going it alone.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/opinions/trump-syria-strikes-psaki/index.html

 

Will Syria become Trump's Iraq?  Time is soon to tell ...

[RunInRed 16,484]

Just a history refresher ...

In 2013, President Barack Obama went to Congress with a request for military action.  Here’s how Mitch McConnell responded to that request.

Quote

"I will be voting against this resolution. A vital national security risk is clearly not at play, there are just too many unanswered questions about our long-term strategy in Syria, including the fact that this proposal is utterly detached from a wider strategy to end the civil war there, and on the specific question of deterring the use of chemical weapons, the president’s proposal appears to be based on a contradiction. Either we will strike targets that threaten the stability of the regime — something the president says he does not intend to do — or we will execute a strike so narrow as to be a mere demonstration."

The attack Trump has made is a demonstration and only a demonstration. Which agan, comes back to the question: Now what?

[RunInRed 16,484]

Here is Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.) 2015 letter signed by more than 100 lawmakers

Quote

Dear Mr. President,

We strongly urge you to consult and receive authorization from Congress before ordering the use of U.S. military force in Syria.  Your responsibility to do so is prescribed in the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

While the Founders wisely gave the Office of the President the authority to act in emergencies, they foresaw the need to ensure public debate – and the active engagement of Congress – prior to committing U.S. military assets.  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.

Mr. President, in the case of military operations in Libya you stated that authorization from Congress was not required because our military was not engaged in “hostilities.”  In addition, an April 1, 2011, memorandum to you from your Office of Legal Counsel concluded:

“…President Obama could rely on his constitutional power to safeguard the national interest by directing the anticipated military operations in Libya—which were limited in their nature, scope, and duration—without prior congressional authorization.”

We view the precedent this opinion sets, where “national interest” is enough to engage in hostilities without congressional authorization, as unconstitutional.  If the use of 221 Tomahawk cruise missiles, 704 Joint Direct Attack Munitions, and 42 Predator Hellfire missiles expended in Libya does not constitute “hostilities,” what does?

If you deem that military action in Syria is necessary, Congress can reconvene at your request.  We stand ready to come back into session, consider the facts before us, and share the burden of decisions made regarding U.S. involvement in the quickly escalating Syrian conflict.

Sincerely,

 

[RunInRed 16,484]

More on the history lesson ...

Quote

Majority Of Republicans Said ‘No’ When Obama Wanted To Launch A Strike On Syria

In 2013, when a sarin nerve gas attack left more than 1,400 dead outside Damascus, President Barack Obama went to Congress to get approval to strike.

In a whip count from ThinkProgress, 183 Republicans were against bombing the country. Only 12 Republicans, including then-House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), sided with the president to launch a strike. Ultimately, Congress did not appear to approve the strike, with 243 Congressional members swaying towards voting “No.” Obama ultimately decided to postpone the vote.

 

[AUUSN 823]

6 minutes ago, RunInRed said:

Just a history refresher ...

In 2013, President Barack Obama went to Congress with a request for military action.  Here’s how Mitch McConnell responded to that request.

The attack Trump has made is a demonstration and only a demonstration. Which agan, comes back to the question: Now what?

Exactly Red. Let's not go rewriting history just to score political points.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/782228-aumfresolutiontext.html

[AUUSN 823]

8 minutes ago, RunInRed said:

More on the history lesson ...

 

1,400 Syrians dead in 2013...crickets.

2017....75 Million in cruise missiles launched.

[AUUSN 823]

1 hour ago, Strychnine said:

 

I would say even that is too simplistic, as rebel forces are far from a cohesive group with the same goal.  They range from defecting Syrian military (least terrible) to Al-Nusra or Tahrir al-Sham (ISIS-esque terrible).

Personally, I am still not convinced that Assad is ultimately responsible, as ordering a chemical attack would have been an utterly idiotic move for him at this time.  It makes more sense for rebel-sympathetic elements in Syria's military to have done it to tarnish Assad further, than it does for Assad to have ordered it.  Assad knows that the main thing protecting his regime is Russia, and ordering chemical attacks is counter-productive to maintaining Russian support.  I have no doubt that Assad is perfectly capable of ordering it, but it makes no sense.  No real benefit to a chemical attack, and a tremendous amount of risk.  That is the kind of action that could be the catalyst to his downfall and eventual execution.  Assad would know that.

Stry, I could be wrong but I think Assad (Russians) has a pretty tight control over his Air Force. This is on him.

[Strychnine 1,803]

Just now, AUUSN said:

Stry, I could be wrong but I think Assad (Russians) has a pretty tight control over his Air Force. This is on him.

 

I know Assad is certainly capable of it, but he is not generally in the habit of acting like a complete idiot or lunatic.  Ordering a chemical attack makes it more difficult politically for Russia to continue supporting him.  It gives other nations renewed justification to remove him from power and try him for war crimes (or let the Syrian people execute him).  With our allied campaign attacking some of his opponents, and the Russians attacking the opponents that we are not, he was most likely to eventually triumph in the civil war.  We were prepared to accept that and simply continue on with the devil we know.

In the court of international public opinion, that attack basically gave NATO a green light to end his regime, and makes it extraordinarily difficult for Russia to do anything to help him if that happens.  Russia wants to keep their air and naval facilities in Syria, but not enough to fight NATO on behalf of a regime that would have been continuing to use chemical attacks on its people.  That is why it makes no sense.  Assad is smart enough to know that he would be moving himself and his allies into an untenable position.  There was absolutely nothing for Assad's regime to gain in that attack, and everything to lose.

[homersapien 11,435]

13 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

Yeah we learned Obama made a huge mistake in reemoving all our troops from Iraq and lettting ISIS spread it's evil. I hope there will be more to come if the Tomahawks didn't get the message across that we are again a world leader and not a puppy dog follower.

So, if removing troops was a mistake, is the proper action sending more troops in? 

[homersapien 11,435]

13 hours ago, AUUSN said:

Ted Cruz 2013.

Maybe Cruz would have been a better POTUS than I assumed.

[homersapien 11,435]

13 hours ago, RunInRed said:

I don't think most Americans are supportive of a nation building, enormous blood and treasure approach.  We'll see where this goes.  But again, if history is any indicator ... 

Screw history.  This is a brand new day and Trump is president.