Syria

mcgruff10

Who knows?  Like I said, depends who you ask. 
Typical American political bs:
democrat: we must accept all Syrian refugees it s our duty! They are civilians just like us. 
republican: we must not accept Syrian refugees. There could be a Terrorists amongst them! Ban immigration from certain countries. 

Democrat: how dare trump bomb the Syrian government after they used chemical weapons on civilians!?  No approval from Congress! World war 3!  Nation building!

republican: it was our duty to bomb Syria after they used chemical weapons on civilians!

i can’t stand it. Support the issue, not the party. I m all for military strikes against Terrorists regardless of who is in charge. 

josevolution

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

My point being, presidents do what they want and then the opposite party ridicules and complains. A few years later, a different political party does the same type of complaining when the same issue occur. Double standard. You can’t be a Democrat and bitch and moan about trump s Syrian strikes but support Obama’s just a few years before. Same can be said of Republicans. 

“Our number one priority is to see this president fail.”

Mitch turtle face McConnell despicable human ..

dignin

mcgruff10 said:

dignin said:

mcgruff10 said:

dignin said:

polaris_x said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mcgruff10 said:

tbergs said:

mcgruff10 said:

stuckinline said:

So, the orange man ordered the airstrikes without congressional approval?

Name a president who hasn’t done this lol. Come on, I get you guys hate trump but the double standards are unreal. 

You want there to be a double standard so you make a blanket statement saying that no one here opposed missile strikes like this by other presidents. How can you even make that claim? Your statement and stance is what comes off as minimizing this completely whacked out presidency. This is just another to add to the list of shady shit. 

How many unauthorized strikes did Obama have?  Was there an outcry like this from the Democrats when he did this?  Again I am no trump fan but chemical weapons being used on civilians are a big no no in my book. And yes there are double standards

I seem to recall Obama was slammed by many for his military decisions. I don't think there is a double standard.

What I do think is that Trump doesn't have a clue what is happening in Syria (or any other country for that matter) and is being influenced by someone eager for action. Without knowing for sure... I'd give Obama credit for analyzing the situation before making any big decision that ultimately he'd be responsible for.  

not a supporter of Obama but in 2013 I believe he threatened Syria about crossing a thin red line ... that was when the first alleged chemical attack happened ... clearly a provocation ... however, I believe he didn't ultimately launch a strike because he received information that the chemical attack was staged ...

Not true. He wanted to act but congress said no. 

There is a difference there. You are referencing strikes against ISIS, not Assad's regime.

did you support these strikes?  I was merely showing an example of no congressional approval. 

I'm on the fence about these strikes, it's a tough issue. And I was just pointing out what is relevant to the situation in Syria then and now.

mcgruff10

dignin said:

mcgruff10 said:

dignin said:

mcgruff10 said:

dignin said:

polaris_x said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mcgruff10 said:

tbergs said:

mcgruff10 said:

stuckinline said:

So, the orange man ordered the airstrikes without congressional approval?

Name a president who hasn’t done this lol. Come on, I get you guys hate trump but the double standards are unreal. 

You want there to be a double standard so you make a blanket statement saying that no one here opposed missile strikes like this by other presidents. How can you even make that claim? Your statement and stance is what comes off as minimizing this completely whacked out presidency. This is just another to add to the list of shady shit. 

How many unauthorized strikes did Obama have?  Was there an outcry like this from the Democrats when he did this?  Again I am no trump fan but chemical weapons being used on civilians are a big no no in my book. And yes there are double standards

I seem to recall Obama was slammed by many for his military decisions. I don't think there is a double standard.

What I do think is that Trump doesn't have a clue what is happening in Syria (or any other country for that matter) and is being influenced by someone eager for action. Without knowing for sure... I'd give Obama credit for analyzing the situation before making any big decision that ultimately he'd be responsible for.  

not a supporter of Obama but in 2013 I believe he threatened Syria about crossing a thin red line ... that was when the first alleged chemical attack happened ... clearly a provocation ... however, I believe he didn't ultimately launch a strike because he received information that the chemical attack was staged ...

Not true. He wanted to act but congress said no. 

There is a difference there. You are referencing strikes against ISIS, not Assad's regime.

did you support these strikes?  I was merely showing an example of no congressional approval. 

I'm on the fence about these strikes, it's a tough issue. And I was just pointing out what is relevant to the situation in Syria then and now.

Yeah I totally agree and get your point.  

Hi!

Did we accomplish something in the strikes? I havent seen any evidence that anything is going to change from this. Just an escalation of hostillities. 

JC29856

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXK3il-E7RE
Tulsi Gabbard questions Mattis, he has no answers

josevolution

I don’t want any more bombs falling on innocent people of any country , so let’s pull all American troops from Syria let them deal with their situation let’s see if Assad is such a great guy let him bring peace to his own country , let Russia & Iran have it let them police that region ...

polaris_x

Also in the vain of critical thinking ... if, as the trump administration said, that they blew up existing chemical weapons stores ... then in reality what they did was release a bunch of toxic chemicals into the atmosphere putting many lives at risk ... but people are walking through the rubble with no protective gear whatsoever ...

so, at the very least you know that the current administration is lying about that ...

dignin

Hi! said:

Did we accomplish something in the strikes? I havent seen any evidence that anything is going to change from this. Just an escalation of hostillities. 

Too soon to say for sure, but I bet it was just like the last strikes and all for show. I'm not really concerned about an escalation with Russia or Iran. You would actually have to do something concrete for that to happen and I think like everything done by Trump it's all flash and no substance.

I know he doesn't give a fuck about the people of Syria.

polaris_x

Hi! said:

Did we accomplish something in the strikes? I havent seen any evidence that anything is going to change from this. Just an escalation of hostillities. 

Actually yes ... this is a so-far list of what was accomplished:

* approximately 100 missiles were launched ... if someone has the actual number - please let me know ... but 100 missiles at $1.9 million each means whoever sells those things are gonna get another big order ...
* more people are going to ask harder questions about syria
* the OPCW report will have more scrutiny
* pharmaceutical research lab will have to be rebuilt

brianlux

josevolution said:

I don’t want any more bombs falling on innocent people of any country , so let’s pull all American troops from Syria let them deal with their situation let’s see if Assad is such a great guy let him bring peace to his own country , let Russia & Iran have it let them police that region ...

I totally agree.  As screwed up as Syria is and as much as atrocities are rampant there, why does the US think it's our responsibility to interfere?  And in doing so, are we improving the situation any?  Have we ever improved anything by getting involved post WWII?  Korea? Vietnam?  Iran?  Iraq?  Syria?  No!  It all just gets worse and we are not helping.  Enough!

cincybearcat

This is a very interesting discussion in my opinion. I certainly see Polaris’s point in the sameness game plan each time and people always buy it. My initial reaction to all of this was that Assad gased people and the missiles are justified.  But I’m trying to look around a bit more.  I will say it’s a huge freakin leap to declare the US/UK/France as evil empires and cast Assad as a humanitarian man of the people and Russia and Iran as protectors of all that is right. 

As usual, it’s probably somewhere in the middle. 

polaris_x

cincybearcat said:

This is a very interesting discussion in my opinion. I certainly see Polaris’s point in the sameness game plan each time and people always buy it. My initial reaction to all of this was that Assad gased people and the missiles are justified.  But I’m trying to look around a bit more.  I will say it’s a huge freakin leap to declare the US/UK/France as evil empires and cast Assad as a humanitarian man of the people and Russia and Iran as protectors of all that is right. 

As usual, it’s probably somewhere in the middle. 

* the two previous alleged chemical attacks were debunked
* the OPCW is about to do its investigation in Dhouma
*  if there is so much actual evidence of Assad atrocities ... gaining Congressional approval and UN Security council approval should be easy
*  these strikes are illegal on all fronts ... goes against UN charter

definitely please do look around ... i've posted a bunch of stuff and I welcome you to critically think about all of it ... question, as you have, everything ... if you do it with an open mind ... then that's all I could hope for ...

dignin

brianlux said:

josevolution said:

I don’t want any more bombs falling on innocent people of any country , so let’s pull all American troops from Syria let them deal with their situation let’s see if Assad is such a great guy let him bring peace to his own country , let Russia & Iran have it let them police that region ...

I totally agree.  As screwed up as Syria is and as much as atrocities are rampant there, why does the US think it's our responsibility to interfere?  And in doing so, are we improving the situation any?  Have we ever improved anything by getting involved post WWII?  Korea? Vietnam?  Iran?  Iraq?  Syria?  No!  It all just gets worse and we are not helping.  Enough!

Do you think the US should have entered WWII? Should NATO have stayed out of Bosnia too? 

Should the world have done something during the Rwanda genocide?

I get the anti-interventionist sentiment. But where is the line before other countries step in to save innocent lives?

Hi!

Does the president have to get congressional approval for every military action? Obviously, if there were some sort of imminent threat, like missles coming our way, i wouldnt hold it against a president for acting on it. What about a nato led operation, or a situation with a un resolution?

brianlux

dignin said:

brianlux said:

josevolution said:

I don’t want any more bombs falling on innocent people of any country , so let’s pull all American troops from Syria let them deal with their situation let’s see if Assad is such a great guy let him bring peace to his own country , let Russia & Iran have it let them police that region ...

I totally agree.  As screwed up as Syria is and as much as atrocities are rampant there, why does the US think it's our responsibility to interfere?  And in doing so, are we improving the situation any?  Have we ever improved anything by getting involved post WWII?  Korea? Vietnam?  Iran?  Iraq?  Syria?  No!  It all just gets worse and we are not helping.  Enough!

Do you think the US should have entered WWII? Should NATO have stayed out of Bosnia too? 

Should the world have done something during the Rwanda genocide?

I get the anti-interventionist sentiment. But where is the line before other countries step in to save innocent lives?

Do you think the US should have entered WWII? Should NATO have stayed out of Bosnia too?
Yes and no.  If Europe and the US had not stolen Hawaii and caused native genocide there, we would not have been attacked by Japan and would not have been justified in entering that war.
Bosnia?  I don't know.  My own life was in utter chaos at that time.  I didn't follow it much.  Was it our issue?  I doubt it.

Should the world have done something during the Rwanda genocide?
Yes, supply aide to the victims, embargoes against the perpetrators.  Engage in war, no.

I get the anti-interventionist sentiment. But where is the line before other countries step in to save innocent lives?
Yes, again, send aide to the victims, embargoes against the perpetrators.  Involve ourselves in others wars?  No. 

polaris_x

dignin said:

brianlux said:

josevolution said:

I don’t want any more bombs falling on innocent people of any country , so let’s pull all American troops from Syria let them deal with their situation let’s see if Assad is such a great guy let him bring peace to his own country , let Russia & Iran have it let them police that region ...

I totally agree.  As screwed up as Syria is and as much as atrocities are rampant there, why does the US think it's our responsibility to interfere?  And in doing so, are we improving the situation any?  Have we ever improved anything by getting involved post WWII?  Korea? Vietnam?  Iran?  Iraq?  Syria?  No!  It all just gets worse and we are not helping.  Enough!

Do you think the US should have entered WWII? Should NATO have stayed out of Bosnia too? 

Should the world have done something during the Rwanda genocide?

I get the anti-interventionist sentiment. But where is the line before other countries step in to save innocent lives?

what part of Iraq, Afhganistan and Libya is about saving lives!??

edit:  heck, what part of korea and vietnam was about saving lives??

polaris_x

remember ... everyone ...

people who would normally be anti-war would not support intervening against a country unless it is believed that the country is evil and/or the leader is satan reborn ... the so called humanitarian cause for war ...

mcgruff10

IMO:
World war 2: justified
Korea: justified
Cuban Missile Crisis: justified
Vietnam: not justified 
Cambodia/Laos: I see why they did it so on the fence
Grenada: justified
Nicaragua: justified
Kuwait/Iraq 91: justified
Rwanda: justified but went in too late
Serbia/Bosnia: justified
Afghanistan: justified
Iraq: not justified
ISIS: justified based on a not justified war
Syria: too soon to tell

cincybearcat

polaris_x said:

cincybearcat said:

This is a very interesting discussion in my opinion. I certainly see Polaris’s point in the sameness game plan each time and people always buy it. My initial reaction to all of this was that Assad gased people and the missiles are justified.  But I’m trying to look around a bit more.  I will say it’s a huge freakin leap to declare the US/UK/France as evil empires and cast Assad as a humanitarian man of the people and Russia and Iran as protectors of all that is right. 

As usual, it’s probably somewhere in the middle. 

* the two previous alleged chemical attacks were debunked
* the OPCW is about to do its investigation in Dhouma
*  if there is so much actual evidence of Assad atrocities ... gaining Congressional approval and UN Security council approval should be easy
*  these strikes are illegal on all fronts ... goes against UN charter

definitely please do look around ... i've posted a bunch of stuff and I welcome you to critically think about all of it ... question, as you have, everything ... if you do it with an open mind ... then that's all I could hope for ...

Russia used their veto 12 times in regards to Syria? I mean, being one of the only “no” votes and blocking so has to be part of the problem.