America Going to War with Syria! - Page 4 - Politics and Economics

Bombing after chem attack seems more like Trump distinguishing himself from his predecessor than an attack that will actually have an effect on anything.

Sent from my LG-K430 using Tapatalk

04-07-2017 , 06:02 AM

#77

andre006

Champions Du Monde

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 12,317

According to this thread people are on Jim Jones type of **** in murica.

Assad gassing his people now more than he would've earlier makes 0 sense.

04-07-2017 , 06:20 AM

#78

SuperUberBob

Not interesting enough

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 48,217

Quote:

Originally Posted by andre006

According to this thread people are on Jim Jones type of **** in murica.

There is a lot of that in Trump's base.

Quote:

Assad gassing his people now more than he would've earlier makes 0 sense.

Just another dictator testing Trump to see what he will do. Putin did it by buzzing one of America's ships. Kim Jong-Un did it by test launching some missiles. Now Assad did it with chemical weapons.

04-07-2017 , 06:22 AM

#79

O.A.F.K.1.1

Ted Patrick

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 27,952

Quote:

Originally Posted by pyatnitski

It's true that it seems a spectacularly dumb decision by the Regime. When I first heard reports of a chemical attack I thought there had to be some chance it wasn't them given how idiotic it seemed. Some Jihadist militia have the capability and willingness to use chlorine based chemical weapons. However everything that's come out about the attack from neutral sources (MSF etc.) supports that it was sarin delivered by airstike. Thinking it was the US or Russia is Alex Jones territory, there's literally no reason to think so except invented 'false flag' narratives, and lots of reason to think it would be impossible - where would they source it, how do they carry out the attack in secret etc. etc.

In terms of the Regime forces it's very difficult to know how coherent they are. There's certainly lots of semi-autonomous units on the ground from different military organisations that are part of the Syrian Regime forces. From that perspective, then, you could maybe believe it's an idiotic or reckless mid-level commander making a big mistake. However it's unlikely those guys have the authority to order an air strike without oversight, especially a chemical attack.

In short, if all the explanations seem crazy you can't dismiss the least crazy just for being crazy.

To be clear, I still think the order was given by Syria and using Syrian equipment. All of which can still be orchestrated through Russian influence.

04-07-2017 , 06:24 AM

#80

O.A.F.K.1.1

Ted Patrick

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 27,952

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperUberBob

There is a lot of that in Trump's base.

Just another dictator testing Trump to see what he will do. Putin did it by buzzing one of America's ships. Kim Jong-Un did it by test launching some missiles. Now Assad did it with chemical weapons.

Why does he need to test Trump?

Potential upside is?

Potential downside is a lot bigger than anything that solves that question mark.

04-07-2017 , 06:40 AM

#81

andre006

Champions Du Monde

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 12,317

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperUberBob

Or when Bill Clinton tested Iraqi children's immunity system by the hundreds of thousands? or when George Bush turned Iraq upside down? Or when Obama did the same with Libya?

Democrats and Republicans should lay off humanitarian wars, they just seem to suck at it.

04-07-2017 , 07:00 AM

#82

SuperUberBob

Not interesting enough

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 48,217

Quote:

Originally Posted by O.A.F.K.1.1

Why does he need to test Trump?

Potential upside is?

Potential downside is a lot bigger than anything that solves that question mark.

When you poke a bear with a stick, you want to know how hard you can poke it without it responding and poke at that degree of strength constantly knowing that nothing will be done to stop you from poking.

Most dictators are full-blown psychopaths and Assad is no exception. Obama used the chemical weapons red line for an attack and Assad did it anyway because reasons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by andre006

Democrats and Republicans should lay off humanitarian wars, they just seem to suck at it.

Wars are never humanitarian.

04-07-2017 , 07:03 AM

#83

fxwacgesvrhdtf

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperUberBob

So is this going to be some tit-for-tat type of thing we'll do in Syria for the next 3+ years or will this escalate into a boots-on-the-ground invasion?

A boots on the ground operation would be nuts and devolve into the next Vietnam. This isn't like Iraq, we'd be fighting a regime directly supported by the Russians.

04-07-2017 , 07:12 AM

#84

SuperUberBob

Not interesting enough

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 48,217

Quote:

Originally Posted by jman220

A boots on the ground operation would be nuts and devolve into the next Vietnam.

Is Trump intelligent enough to understand that? Even if he is, would he care what happens to brown people? Most of his supporters love him because of how openly he talked about torturing suspected terrorists for no reason and bombing their families.

I'm not saying that a military operation is likely to happen but there's an element of unpredictability that the world shares with us that makes it impossible for me to completely rule out an invasion.

04-07-2017 , 07:33 AM

#85

raradevils

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 8,189

Quote:

Originally Posted by jman220

A boots on the ground operation would be nuts and devolve into the next Vietnam. This isn't like Iraq, we'd be fighting a regime directly supported by the Russians.

We already have boots on the ground in the area and have for a couple of years.

04-07-2017 , 07:35 AM

#86

SuperUberBob

Not interesting enough

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 48,217

Quote:

Originally Posted by raradevils

We already have boots on the ground in the area and have for a couple of years.

BotG I believe here is a reference to full-scale military operations like Iraq and Afghanistan as opposed to having feet physically on the ground.

04-07-2017 , 07:38 AM

#87

sportsjefe

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 13,693

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onlydo2days

Seems like it was just a brushback pitch but who really knows.

One where the catcher said beforehand 'Look, your buddy just moonwalked the whole way around the bases, but don't worry we aren't actually going to hit you.'

04-07-2017 , 07:43 AM

#88

Loki

binary duo

Join Date: Nov 2015 Posts: 12,772

Will this be trumps first of many Dukakis-in-a-tank moments?

04-07-2017 , 07:44 AM

#89

andre006

Champions Du Monde

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 12,317

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperUberBob

Wars are never humanitarian.

You undertand this but don't seem able to draw any consequence.

04-07-2017 , 09:40 AM

#90

einbert

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 14,911

I didn't know about this. Apparently the GOP had threatened to impeach Obama if he did an air strike on Syria without their authorization. He sent a request for authorization to Congress, but they never did anything with it.

Hunter: Obama inviting impeachment if he strikes Syria without Congress
September 2013
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...strikes-syria/

Quote:

Rep. Duncan Hunter said Tuesday that President Obama would be breaking the law and even inviting impeachment if he went ahead with strikes on Syria after a congressional rejection.

“I think he’s breaking the law if he strikes without congressional approval,” Mr. Hunter, a California Republican, told The Washington Times. “And if he proceeds without Congress providing that authority, it should be considered an impeachable offense.”

Mr. Obama this weekend sent Congress a draft resolution authorizing use of force to take out Syria’s facilities for weapons of mass destruction, including chemical weapons.

But the president said he believes he still has authority to strike unilaterally without backing from Congress, and his aides reportedly said they believe he could still act even if Congress voted next week to reject his request for authorization of force.

Just back from a trip to the Syria-Jordan border last week, Mr. Hunter, who served as a Marine officer in both Iraq and Afghanistan, said he’s leaning against granting Mr. Obama’s request because he doesn’t see evidence the administration has the right objectives in mind.

“Unless the president’s willing to go to war with Syria and send my Marines back in to another country in the region, you don’t just fire warning shots, and you don’t lob a few missiles and say OK, wipe your hands, job well done, they’re deterred,” Mr. Hunter said.

Last edited by einbert; 04-07-2017 at 09:46 AM.

04-07-2017 , 09:46 AM

#91

einbert

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 14,911

Walter Jones, GOP Congressman, Threatens Obama With Impeachment
June 2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3513138.html

Quote:

North Carolina Rep. Walter Jones, an outspoken anti-war Republican, said Thursday that he was prepared to attempt to impeach President Barack Obama if U.S. military action in Syria reached a certain point.

“If Congress sends one troop, if one of our troops goes to Syria and is killed, I will introduce articles of impeachment against the President,” Jones said at a Capitol Hill news conference, alongside other lawmakers who expressed concerns about the arming of Syrian rebels and the general direction of U.S. involvement in the region.

Jones has been at the forefront of anti-war efforts for years. While he initially voted to approve the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he emerged as one of the loudest opposing voices during the latter half of Bush’s presidency, and even supported a move to impeach then-Vice President Dick Cheney.

He’s been equally aggressive during Obama’s tenure. In 2011, Jones sued the administration for getting American forces involved in Libya without first obtaining congressional approval.

“The president is not a king. He was elected by the people, just like the House and Senate,” he said at the time. “I think he is absolutely off-base. I think that is an abuse of power, and that’s why we’re going to the courts.”

In 2012, he prepared his first impeachment resolution regarding Syria, arguing that “the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress” would constitute “an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.”

04-07-2017 , 09:49 AM

#92

einbert

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 14,911

Top aide: Obama worried about impeachment for Syria actions
January 2017
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/31...-syria-actions

Quote:

President Obama's deputy national security adviser says in a new interview that the threat of impeachment "was a factor" in Obama's decision not to pursue a tougher intervention policy in Syria.

"We actually had Congress warning us against taking action without congressional authorization, which we interpreted as the president could face impeachment," Ben Rhodes told Politico Magazine.

When asked to elaborate, the president's adviser said that Republicans, including then-Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), made it clear that premature military action without congressional approval would be unconstitutional.

"That was a factor. Go back and read the letters from Boehner, letters from the Republican members of Congress. They laid down markers that this would not be constitutional. If we got drawn into a conflict in Syria without congressional authorization, without international authorization, without international support, you can see very clearly how that could have completely derailed this entire presidency," Rhodes told the publication.

04-07-2017 , 09:58 AM

#93

microbet

Solar Powered

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 56,512

Quote:

Originally Posted by jman220

A boots on the ground operation would be nuts and devolve into the next Vietnam. This isn't like Iraq, we'd be fighting a regime directly supported by the Russians.

Most of the fighting in Vietnam was against the South Vietnamese Vietcong and the vast majority of their weapons were American made.

04-07-2017 , 09:59 AM

#94

einbert

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 14,911

9 civilians, 16 on the Syrian air base killed in American air strikes from yesterday
https://www.axios.com/us-syria-airst...349024437.html

Quote:

Why Obama refused this approach: "Our assessment that while we could inflict some damage on Assad, we could not, through a missile strike, eliminate the chemical weapons themselves, and what I would then face was the prospect of Assad having survived the strike and claiming he had successfully defied the United States, that the United States had acted unlawfully in the absence of a UN mandate, and that that would have potentially strengthened his hand rather than weakened it," Obama told the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg last April.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...ctrine/471525/

04-07-2017 , 10:02 AM

#95

microbet

Solar Powered

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 56,512

Not only will all the Republicans in congress authorize whatever force Trump may ask for, half the Democrats will as well.

04-07-2017 , 10:03 AM

#96

einbert

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 14,911

Right microbet, but furthermore--this sets a precedent where Republican Presidents are bound to get bipartisan support for military actions by and large, but Democrats will never get that bipartisan support no matter what. It's going to be a great Republican argument that people should just vote Republican from now on.

04-07-2017 , 10:05 AM

#97

Huskalator

adept

Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 775

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noodle Wazlib

Will this be trumps first of many Dukakis-in-a-tank moments?

04-07-2017 , 10:07 AM

#98

einbert

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 14,911

The old standard was that the President was to be given wide bipartisan support for military actions (see Iraq, Afghanistan, many others) because it was supposed to be beyond party politics. Republicans have already adjusted, and made sure to hem Obama in to the unpopular choices of doing nothing or doing something without bipartisan support. Democrats are still playing the old game.

04-07-2017 , 10:11 AM

#99

champstark

aka starkwired

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 14,838

https://gabbard.house.gov/news/press...-short-sighted

Quote:

“It angers and saddens me that President Trump has taken the advice of war hawks and escalated our illegal regime change war to overthrow the Syrian government. This escalation is short-sighted and will lead to more dead civilians, more refugees, the strengthening of al-Qaeda and other terrorists, and a direct confrontation between the United States and Russia—which could lead to nuclear war.

“This Administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences of the United States attack on Syria without waiting for the collection of evidence from the scene of the chemical poisoning. If President Assad is indeed guilty of this horrible chemical attack on innocent civilians, I will be the first to call for his prosecution and execution by the International Criminal Court. However, because of our attack on Syria, this investigation may now not even be possible. And without such evidence, a successful prosecution will be much harder.”

LOL HASTENDAN