GuyMontag
.44 mag
There's nothing conspiratorial about knowing this stinks to high heaven.
US Launches Airstrikes In Syria
- Thread starter Dr. Evil
- Start date
There's nothing conspiratorial about knowing this stinks to high heaven.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
From what I've seen and read tonight, My country just conducted an illegal attack on another country. which didn't threaten us.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Thanks Guy ,
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
I didn't catch that one yet
If we had, undeniable, verified, no doubt about it video proof that (insert bad person X) did (insert evil act Y), I would STILL be against us pulling this world police shit!
Even in our own country we understand (somewhat) "jurisdictions."
This.
Is.
Not.
Our.
Fucking.
PROBLEM!
*insert washed up Jewish WWII quote*
Even in our own country we understand (somewhat) "jurisdictions."
This.
Is.
Not.
Our.
Fucking.
PROBLEM!
*insert washed up Jewish WWII quote*
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Phazer
.450/400 Nitro Ex
The whole damn region is full of bad actors and worse actors. There are no good guys there. With regards to U.S. interests in that region, the enemy of our enemy is still our enemy.
I'm glad to have a President that acts in accordance with his rhetoric. But, I'm concerned about the choice of place to act militarily.
I'm glad to have a President that acts in accordance with his rhetoric. But, I'm concerned about the choice of place to act militarily.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Trump was the one saying We need to take care of US first. he was saying that the US doesn't need to go into Syria. He was saying that the Syrian people should decide for themselves. That the Mid east is a quagmire.
For me that is one strike against him.
For me that is one strike against him.
UPDATE – U.S. Launches 59 Tomahawk Missiles Against Syrian Sharyat Airbase Near Homs…
President Trump is anticipated to deliver remarks to the nation tonight:
– The targeted single airfield is Sharyat airbase in NW Syria, near Homs – The alleged source of chemical attack – Approximately 60 missiles fired – Russian military was informed in advance – Congressional Gang-of-Eight was notified in advance –
"Russian Forces Were Notified In Advance": Pentagon Statement On Air Strikes In Syria | Zero Hedge
President Trump is anticipated to deliver remarks to the nation tonight:
– The targeted single airfield is Sharyat airbase in NW Syria, near Homs – The alleged source of chemical attack – Approximately 60 missiles fired – Russian military was informed in advance – Congressional Gang-of-Eight was notified in advance –
"Russian Forces Were Notified In Advance": Pentagon Statement On Air Strikes In Syria | Zero Hedge
I'm sure our esteemed intelligence found those 25 chemical weapon sites using the same wisdom and wizardry that they used to identify the "moderate rebels".
Pro-Assad and Russia here, at least they stick up for Christians. Unlike every other player in the sandbox.
Pro-Assad and Russia here, at least they stick up for Christians. Unlike every other player in the sandbox.
RDN
.357 mag
And that's why NATO countries needs to step up, and start paying their share of the responsibility - Once again Trump is right
Assad needs to be put in his place; or in this case, taken out of his place. I do not see why it is always the US who needs to do the taking out. This entire situation only proves that the UN and NATO are organizations that are not worth a pile of fresh laid shit.
I will also add, if Ole Barry would have done a better job as President during the past eight years, the situation may not be as bad as it is right now.
eah, I am throwing the blame towards Obummer on this mess!
I will also add, if Ole Barry would have done a better job as President during the past eight years, the situation may not be as bad as it is right now.
eah, I am throwing the blame towards Obummer on this mess!
Even Hitler didn't want to rule the world, just most of Europe. Our government has bigger aspirations.
Remember how quickly they established a fund to compensate 9/11 families before they sued.
Americans were killed by an organization created by our own government. Open and shut case.
Remember how quickly they established a fund to compensate 9/11 families before they sued.
Americans were killed by an organization created by our own government. Open and shut case.
Blimey
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Because nobody else can get off their dick and do something. It's like with North Korea. Bush said it was the axis of evil and did nothing about it. Then Obama sat in a corner fiddling with his nuts while proclaiming how a nuclear north korea wasn't acceptable and meanwhile NK keeps advancing their program. 15 years later they've gone from not knowing what atoms are to being on the verge of weaponizing ballistic missiles. Who is doing anything to stop this? The problem is when you get a bunch of people in a room all scared of their own shadow and who lack any ability to really do anything, nothing happens.
FWIW Trump has said this is a national security issue because it tells the world that chemical attacks = no. I am sympathetic to that. It is illegal to do this to people. So what happens when you break the law? If you go to the UN and they veto everything, nothing happens to you. What good is it saying these attacks are illegal if there are no repercussions?
I absolutely think Trump should have first gone to Congress over this issue, even if that would have potentially resulted in excessive warning to Assad; the message should an attack have happened would have been the same.
If Trump is half as smart as some of you think there are strategic benefits here not so immediately apparent: If Trump is willing to attack Syria without warning or congressional approval because it gassed a few dozen people, and NK, which the US is still at war with, is aggressively pursuing nukes, maybe Kim Jong Un needs to start sleeping in bunkers and cut it out with his nuclear program. No, i don't believe NK will take this as a message, but China is smarter and the message may also be to them: Please help us with NK or else we'll have to do it ourselves.
Again, we know the UN won't ever get anything done, and this tells the world that if the UN won't act, the US still can.
Arjuna
.338 Win Mag
Blimey
.450/400 Nitro Ex
If nothing else, everybody must be happy that finally we can STFU about Trump and Putin sexting after this, right? Rex called Russia "complicit or simply incompetent" and Putin is now vowing to bolster Syria air defense.
Blimey
.450/400 Nitro Ex
I'm honestly surprised the stock market is looking at a flat open.
I don't want WW III, but Putin Better not think his old soviet sheet metal is a match for US air force.
I am sure the American people will support our military backing Jihad AlNusra.
Bananabandit
.338 Win Mag
Ill just go take Russian speaking classes now.
Rosetta Stone here I come!
Rosetta Stone here I come!
John Stark
.44 mag
As posted on my site: War in Syria?
War in Syria?
There are a lot of factors here.
Trump has stated that this was a "vital national security interest" and that "no child of God should ever suffer such horror" for justification. Go on over to Breitbart for those quotes for verification.
Both of these are, in fact, possible justifications for POTUS to take quick military action. Note that I said "possible."
Like it or lump it, the US does have national security interests in many foreign nations. Wherever we fall on the isolationist or the interventionist side of the spectrum, or somewhere in between, this is where the US is at: tangled up in all kinds of international problems, for various reasons.
On the "vital national interest/security" front, if we trade heavily with a foreign nation and have American companies operating there, we would have a duty to protect our people and interests there. Likewise, if we have airbases or naval bases in any given nation, military alliances and treaties, use their ports for refueling, and so on, then there is a US interest and potentially a "security interest."
On the use of chemical weapons, the US might be obligated, in partnership with allies, to intervene where chemical or biological or nuclear agreements are being broken.
Again, whether we like it or not, the US is heavily entangled around the world, and through agreements our diplomats have worked to put into place and that our government, through Congress, have ratified.
So, following on from this, there are numerous questions that ought to be asked in this situation.
What was the vital national security interest?
Syria has been in a not-so-civil war since 2011. As far as I know, we have no major interests in Syria, and those we do or might have, were not attacked by Assad; there have been no attacks on a US embassy, US business interests there, or any military presence we have there.
If there had been an attack, POTUS does have the power to react immediately to secure US interests as CinC, even without getting a Congressional vote to declare war. This is indisputable. If a US military base, for example, was under attack, POTUS is authorized to retaliate in kind to protect US servicemen. POTUS would likely need to get a declaration of war to invade the country or carry out other, extensive military operations against it (that pesky Constitution thing), but in the face of an imminent or ongoing attack, POTUS has both the Constitutional authority and Congressional pre-approval to handle immediate military attacks against our interests.
Since there was no attack against US interests, this "vital national security interest" comes across to me as a smoke screen.
What are our obligations under international treaty?
It is very likely (almost certain, in fact) that we, along with other allied nations, have obligations to "police" the use of chemical, biological, and nuclear weaponry in states that have signed those treaties, and even in dealing with non-signers if they are threats to us or our allies. We may not like that we are entangled in these agreements, but we are.
Here there are several questions.
Are we sure it was Assad who gassed people?
Why are we "going it alone" once again if there are treaty and other agreements with allies to take care of this kind of thing?
Since there was no immediate threat to US security interests, why did POTUS not seek a Congressional declaration of war or some other form of "authorization" (as Bush did in Afghanistan & Iraq) before he took unilateral action to stop a bad foreign player from using such weapons?
What kind of evidence do we have that this was, in fact, Assad?
Why aren't our "allies" not participating in this action if there is an obligation for them to do so in partnership with the US under treaties that deal with these kinds of weapons?
In terms of the law, POTUS can, in fact, take action when US interests are, in fact, in eminent and immediate risk, even if politically some of us don't like that for whatever reason (non-interventionist ideology, the price tag, the potential harm to troops, the possibility of any given situation spiraling into a larger conflict, etc.)
However, its my view that, barring information that we as the public don't have, this lawful justification is not in play.
In terms of our treat obligations, again, POTUS has the power to take action, but this would depend on the situation (immediate threat vs. the need to enforce weapons agreements), even if we don't like it.
Frankly, I don't see where "vital national security interests" comes into play here, giving POTUS the authority to act immediately and without consulting and getting approval from Congress, and I don't see justification for this in terms of national and international treaty and alliance agreements without consulting and getting approval from Congress either.
And that truly is the crux of the matter, Constitutional authority to take action (even if the People don't like that action for their own political reasons.
Its one thing to enter into an unpopular war situation under the proper authority. At least the checks and balances are maintained, even if the People don't like it. We can support a POTUS that uses his power by jumping through the proper hoops.
Its another thing altogether for a POTUS to act beyond his authority, and that may be the case here in terms of both "immediate threat/attack" authority vs. "enforcing treaty and weapons agreements" authority.
I admit its possible there is something we don't know that POTUS does know; however, the two reasons stated for this attack do not, in appearance at least, give comfort to those who want a government that follows the prescribed Constitutional methods ("checks and balances") to do so.
Of course, in a post-Liberty, post-Constitution United States, none of this really matters if or when our political masters seek to further a global agenda that is detrimental to our Constitutional order and without our "consent" through our so-called "representatives."
Hence, the reason that I have insisted repeatedly that we are Beyond the Looking Glass and living in new, shiny, Wonderland type of America, where the Queen of Hearts rules with autonomy and impunity.
The US Constitution is a dead letter, written by dead men for future generations, a message that falls on the deaf ears and the blind eyes of a People that have gone so very, very far astray from it and from the principles of our Founding in the first place.
War in Syria?
There are a lot of factors here.
Trump has stated that this was a "vital national security interest" and that "no child of God should ever suffer such horror" for justification. Go on over to Breitbart for those quotes for verification.
Both of these are, in fact, possible justifications for POTUS to take quick military action. Note that I said "possible."
Like it or lump it, the US does have national security interests in many foreign nations. Wherever we fall on the isolationist or the interventionist side of the spectrum, or somewhere in between, this is where the US is at: tangled up in all kinds of international problems, for various reasons.
On the "vital national interest/security" front, if we trade heavily with a foreign nation and have American companies operating there, we would have a duty to protect our people and interests there. Likewise, if we have airbases or naval bases in any given nation, military alliances and treaties, use their ports for refueling, and so on, then there is a US interest and potentially a "security interest."
On the use of chemical weapons, the US might be obligated, in partnership with allies, to intervene where chemical or biological or nuclear agreements are being broken.
Again, whether we like it or not, the US is heavily entangled around the world, and through agreements our diplomats have worked to put into place and that our government, through Congress, have ratified.
So, following on from this, there are numerous questions that ought to be asked in this situation.
What was the vital national security interest?
Syria has been in a not-so-civil war since 2011. As far as I know, we have no major interests in Syria, and those we do or might have, were not attacked by Assad; there have been no attacks on a US embassy, US business interests there, or any military presence we have there.
If there had been an attack, POTUS does have the power to react immediately to secure US interests as CinC, even without getting a Congressional vote to declare war. This is indisputable. If a US military base, for example, was under attack, POTUS is authorized to retaliate in kind to protect US servicemen. POTUS would likely need to get a declaration of war to invade the country or carry out other, extensive military operations against it (that pesky Constitution thing), but in the face of an imminent or ongoing attack, POTUS has both the Constitutional authority and Congressional pre-approval to handle immediate military attacks against our interests.
Since there was no attack against US interests, this "vital national security interest" comes across to me as a smoke screen.
What are our obligations under international treaty?
It is very likely (almost certain, in fact) that we, along with other allied nations, have obligations to "police" the use of chemical, biological, and nuclear weaponry in states that have signed those treaties, and even in dealing with non-signers if they are threats to us or our allies. We may not like that we are entangled in these agreements, but we are.
Here there are several questions.
Are we sure it was Assad who gassed people?
Why are we "going it alone" once again if there are treaty and other agreements with allies to take care of this kind of thing?
Since there was no immediate threat to US security interests, why did POTUS not seek a Congressional declaration of war or some other form of "authorization" (as Bush did in Afghanistan & Iraq) before he took unilateral action to stop a bad foreign player from using such weapons?
What kind of evidence do we have that this was, in fact, Assad?
Why aren't our "allies" not participating in this action if there is an obligation for them to do so in partnership with the US under treaties that deal with these kinds of weapons?
In terms of the law, POTUS can, in fact, take action when US interests are, in fact, in eminent and immediate risk, even if politically some of us don't like that for whatever reason (non-interventionist ideology, the price tag, the potential harm to troops, the possibility of any given situation spiraling into a larger conflict, etc.)
However, its my view that, barring information that we as the public don't have, this lawful justification is not in play.
In terms of our treat obligations, again, POTUS has the power to take action, but this would depend on the situation (immediate threat vs. the need to enforce weapons agreements), even if we don't like it.
Frankly, I don't see where "vital national security interests" comes into play here, giving POTUS the authority to act immediately and without consulting and getting approval from Congress, and I don't see justification for this in terms of national and international treaty and alliance agreements without consulting and getting approval from Congress either.
And that truly is the crux of the matter, Constitutional authority to take action (even if the People don't like that action for their own political reasons.
Its one thing to enter into an unpopular war situation under the proper authority. At least the checks and balances are maintained, even if the People don't like it. We can support a POTUS that uses his power by jumping through the proper hoops.
Its another thing altogether for a POTUS to act beyond his authority, and that may be the case here in terms of both "immediate threat/attack" authority vs. "enforcing treaty and weapons agreements" authority.
I admit its possible there is something we don't know that POTUS does know; however, the two reasons stated for this attack do not, in appearance at least, give comfort to those who want a government that follows the prescribed Constitutional methods ("checks and balances") to do so.
Of course, in a post-Liberty, post-Constitution United States, none of this really matters if or when our political masters seek to further a global agenda that is detrimental to our Constitutional order and without our "consent" through our so-called "representatives."
Hence, the reason that I have insisted repeatedly that we are Beyond the Looking Glass and living in new, shiny, Wonderland type of America, where the Queen of Hearts rules with autonomy and impunity.
The US Constitution is a dead letter, written by dead men for future generations, a message that falls on the deaf ears and the blind eyes of a People that have gone so very, very far astray from it and from the principles of our Founding in the first place.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
The US cannot continue to be a hypocrite in the eyes of the world , We cannot simple use morality as a reason to go to war or we will find ourselves at war with every country in the world. It is the US that has killed more civilians than anybody else by reason of explosive tonnage dropped in the better part of the last three decades .and it has your name on it. They have made You and your family legitimate targets , what did you get out of it? besides paying for it ?
And what happens when you find out that the """proof that Assad used gas "" wasnt so rock solid after all?
And what happens when you find out that the """proof that Assad used gas "" wasnt so rock solid after all?
Last edited:
Plus - Trump drew line in sand; reacted when it was crossed, with strength and lethality.
Negative(s) - see @John Stark above (well said and analyzed as usual) - no one knows what's real or not in "news" these days. Send in a DevGru team to confirm; provide max kinetic overwatch and fast exfil.
"We have always been at war with Oceania."
Negative(s) - see @John Stark above (well said and analyzed as usual) - no one knows what's real or not in "news" these days. Send in a DevGru team to confirm; provide max kinetic overwatch and fast exfil.
"We have always been at war with Oceania."
swilliams
6.5 Creedmoor
You don't really think they'll give up on that idea, do you? There's no logic there, or they wouldn't have believed the whole thing in the first place.
John Stark
.44 mag
I won't address your other points, but this one I think misses wide of the mark, at least in a philosophical sense.
The decision to go to war is, and always has been, a moral choice, just as all choices that are made are moral, one way or another.
The only question when it comes to a moral choice is whether it is a good one, or an evil one.
As I stated, going to war does fall under the authority of our representatives, given to them by us supposedly through our Constitution and US Code. We may not like it when they do so, and we might vote them out for doing so, but our government certainly has the authority to do so under our system of government.
The question, legally, was whether the authority exercised in a proper manner, whether the "checks and balances" were followed. If our representatives jumped through the proper Constitutional hoops, then they have satisfied the moral legal requirements in terms of so-called "good government."
This does not take away from the fact that the People have an obligation to determine for themselves whether using that authority, in the proper manner (jumping through the hoops), was the morally right thing to do.
In our system, even if our so-called representatives decide for whatever reason what they are doing is "morally correct," and even if they jump through the proper political hoops, they are supposedly still accountable to us, We the People, at election time.
The fact that our government has become one gigantic farce of staged theater rests squarely upon the shoulders of the American People.
It is right and proper that dictators get what is coming to them; that is morally indisputable. Dictators by their very nature are a great moral blight upon mankind, and have been since ancient times.
The question for us living in a so-called "Republic" is whether we have any duty to involve ourselves in it, and whether such action might have other moral (and hence, political/diplomatic) implications that will cause more evil down the road, for us and those we are "helping," or less evil if we fail to intervene.
One thing we can rest assured on is the fact that even if our so-called "leaders" offer moral justifications for the things they do, they will be lying much of the time.
"Do not trust in princes, In mortal man, in whom there is no salvation." Psalm 146:3
Our Founders knew that Psalm, and other moral imperatives and teachings on good government from the Bible like it, very, very well, which is why they attempted to put the power of government into the hands of the People, rather than an elite ruling class.
Its truly not their fault that we have failed to heed their advice, and insist, time and again, to install plutocrats and globalists who do not have our national interests to heart.
Bullshit! Any legitimate leader of a sovereign country can be declared a dictator, brutal dictator, dictator who kills his own people. Our self-serving propaganda doesn't give us the right to violate International law. An act of aggression against a sovereign country which is fighting International terrorism doesn't fall in the realm of anything that can be described as moral.