US Launches Airstrikes In Syria

[John Stark]

Here's another interesting question for us.

If we are all about "national security interests" around the world, why have our bombs never fallen on Saudi Arabia, a supposed ally, or Iran?

Both are major players in exporting terrorism around the world, and many thousands of Americans have died because of the actions of these two state players in the global jihad.

The vast majority of the jihadists in 911 were from Saudi Arabia, and we know that the House of Saud has been playing a double game against us for a long time. The Saudis are still funding jihad around the world, including the building of many new, shiny mosques in the United States. Oddly enough, jihadists have been killing Americans on our own soil since 911 based out their mosques, and the House of Saud not only continues to fund many of the overt and covert jihad groups and mosques in the US, they do so while still having a strong place at our governmental table and in our government apparatus to bend the ears of our political masters, including Trump.

Could it be the cash flow? Nah, couldn't be!

The Iranians too have been funding jihad around the world, including the killing of Americans, for decades. Furthermore, they are rigorously pursuing nuclear weapons so that they might become the major player in the Middle East in their efforts to return to Islamic hegemony in the region. Like Pakistan, Iran knows that when they go nuclear (if they haven't already, and are merely stock piling at this point), they will have a big bargaining chip in the global game being played, and like Pakistan, the US will continue to kowtow to Iran just as we have been doing, under the Obamanation and so far, under Trump.

If Trump wanted to show he's boss, and make a show of US strength after the terribly Islamist-supporting policies of the Obamanation, how does hitting Syria advance that line of reasoning?

Striking at real enemies, who kill Americans whenever they can get away with it, seems far more prudent.

Syria is a failed state. At the moment, they represent no real threat to us.

Iran and Saudi Arabia are our enemies, one overtly and the other covertly.

We can think through these things and realize when we're being had, or we can keep following the bouncy ball and singing a the snappy tune we're trained to follow, which always ends in a funeral dirge for Liberty and our so-called system of "Republican" and representative government.

 

[John Stark]

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.

You might have a point, if I was actually saying what you are implying here.

I wasn't, and therefore, your point is moot.

It is not my fault if you refuse to address the point that I was actually making, or failed to understand it.

 

[Mosinitis]

Syria is not a failed state. They are winning where we failed, not only we failed, we made a mess. Why hold back the truth?

 

[Mosinitis]

One of the few rare examples where Muslims are actually fighting against militant Islamists and our government bombs them. WHAT THE FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[John Stark]

Syria is not a failed state. They are winning where we failed, not only we failed, we made a mess. Why hold back the truth?

I could address this point that you're making, but I wont do so until you correct the record. You are trying to make it seem that I stated something that I didn't: that we can attack any nation we want merely because that nation was a dictatorship, and do so in violation of the law, international or not.

I not only did NOT state that, I explicitly laid out criteria as to why I think, unless we are given further information, that our so-called representative in the White House, has failed on both justifications that he stipulated for making this attack: our own system of governmental checks and balances, including the power of POTUS to take immediate action for reasons of "vital national security interests," and in the matter of international law, treaty, alliance, and so on.

So do me the favor of responding to what I actually wrote.

 

[GuyMontag]

John, we've got an Imperial Presidency so let's be real. What's the point of this distinction without a difference bullshit?

 

[John Stark]

John, we've got an Imperial Presidency so let's be real. What's the point of this distinction without a difference bullshit?

I've already acknowledged your point before you even made it, when I stated upthread that our so-called "representatives" do not actually serve our interests, and that they do not follow our laws or actually practice our system of government. Hence, my point about our Republic being nothing more than a farce at this point. I've repeated this ever since I began participating in "discussion" with folks here and on the old site.

That doesn't make the distinction between what is in effect, or "real" (to use your own term), versus how things ought to be, any less important.

Indeed, it makes it vitally important.

For someone who likes to parse Lincoln and the Civil War in the manner that you do, I'd think you'd understand that distinction.

I wonder how many times I have to state in explicit, clear English that our system of government has moved beyond the Republican terms upon which it was created, and beyond the Liberty it supposedly guarantees, before others will stop accusing me of saying what I am not saying.

The "fact" that we have an Imperialist Presidency does not, and never should mean, that we should stop pointing that out, or stop pointing out that its wrong.

 

[prambo]

You might have a point, if I was actually saying what you are implying here.

I wasn't, and therefore, your point is moot.

It is not my fault if you refuse to address the point that I was actually making, or failed to understand it.

I could address this point that you're making, but I wont do so until you correct the record. You are trying to make it seem that I stated something that I didn't: that we can attack any nation we want merely because that nation was a dictatorship, and do so in violation of the law, international or not.

I not only did NOT state that, I explicitly laid out criteria as to why I think, unless we are given further information, that our so-called representative in the White House, has failed on both justifications that he stipulated for making this attack: our own system of governmental checks and balances, including the power of POTUS to take immediate action for reasons of "vital national security interests," and in the matter of international law, treaty, alliance, and so on.

So do me the favor of responding to what I actually wrote.

Figured out to whom you were "responding". No surprise.

Nice to see you around John; incisive analysis as always. I'm drifting further and further to the doom-and-gloom side. Not depressed, just amused indifference.

The man behind the curtain is still in control - prayed something might change, but I think not.

 

[holdover]

John, The only thing I meant when saying morality is a causus belli for war is , that any country at any time can be Attacked by finding a morality issue with them . Everybody is going to have some morality issues , We can easily come up with whatever was needed. I wasn't trying to say that morality is bad reason for war , only that moral justifications alone can be abused, See Spanish inquisition.

“In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution.”.

Let the law decide.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

Russia isn't so thrilled...

Russia says US missile strikes on Syria came 'within inch' of triggering military clash

 

[Jsmegs77]

I don't like this. Not one bit. While it is commendable that our Commander in Chief is proving to, in fact, possess a backbone, I'm afraid I disagree with the battles he is picking. I would much rather see this level of reaction to enemies (foreign or domestic) crossing lines at home first. While it is vitally important to send the message "Don't fuck with us or we will pave your streets with glass" to aggressive little nation-states, I can't think this was the place to do it. Also, there is THE other world superpower on the opposing side of this. Poking a bear is pretty generally regarded as a bad idea. In addition, the fact that Congress wasn't involved and there was no official declaration of war is problematic, not only for this but for every armed conflict we've been involved in since WW2, in my view.

What's that quote about "Never get involved in a land war in Asia"? To be pedantic, the middle east is not asia, but it's close enough. Apologies for the rambling, I'm still collecting my thoughts on this issue so it's scattershot at present.

 

[Frankly]

Killing people with Sarin versus killing them with Cruise missiles = just as dead. Stupid.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

Well, perhaps it's routine but now there is a Russian warship headed towards our ships.
Report: Russian Warship Heading for U.S. Navy Destroyers that Launched Syria Attack

 

[pjzwtl]

Killing people with Sarin versus killing them with Cruise missiles = just as dead. Stupid.

Not that I don't understand your basic premise but there is a difference between hitting a strategic target and just randomly gassing a civilian population.

 

[pjzwtl]

When all is said and done Russia will only symbolically pound their chest and this will probably be the end of it. Perhaps if we weren't lead by pussies for the past 8 years this scenario never would have been played out. Sometimes you need to show your willing to throw the punch and not just talk about it.

 

[Frankly]

Perhaps I'm evolving. After listening to some of Rush and then the Breitbart interview with Sebastian Gorka (who I respect a lot) I might just give Trump the benefit of the doubt and take his word that Assad did indeed use chemical weapons and this is a surgical strike and not the start of another quagmire.

Hopefully. I still don't understand why Assad would do this, it does not jive. Something's fishy.

Not many have mentioned it but Trump is hosting the Chinese leader and, oh BTW, I just launched a missile strike while we were entertaining.... That's pretty bad ass and I am sure the message came through loud and clear that he'll act when Obama was passive. I bet North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, etc. noticed too.

 

[Dr. Evil]

Not that I don't understand your basic premise but there is a difference between hitting a strategic target and just randomly gassing a civilian population.

Besides, I was under the impression they were taking out chemical weapon reserves as well as air craft to prevent the ability of people dying from said chemical weapons. I didn't think the cruise missiles were targeting people.

 

[holdover]

Well ,I agree that Trump showed military might and US strength and that people better rethink their positions if they think hes bluffing. And he has added the element of unpredictability which wont help them sleep any better either. North Korea isn't going to keep provoking this guy.

So the US has definitely gained some strength in this action. I just don't like the way it was done.

 

[1911guy]

Trump's attack was a good idea. Well executed with lasing implications.

 

[NirvanaFan]

I don't really care if Assad attacked his own people. We had no right to go in there by ourselves and bomb another sovereign country. I really don't see how this doesn't violate the War Powers Act. It doesn't matter if Clinton or Bush 2 did it. That doesn't make what Trump did OK.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

So if it does violate the War Powers Act, is that then an impeachable offence? You just know the Progs will be all over it if so.

 

[Mosinitis]

Trump's attack was a good idea. Well executed with lasing implications.

Except we attacked the wrong side as we ALWAYS do.

 

[NirvanaFan]

So if it does violation the War Powers Act, is that then an impeachable offence? You just know the Progs will be all over it if so.

Couldn't tell you the answer to that.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

One thing this crisis has made obvious to everyone, is the UN is utterly useless. Just disolve it already.

 

[Frankly]

$1,410,000 per missile x 59 = $83.19 million

 

[Jezman]

 

[pjzwtl]

I really don't see how this doesn't violate the War Powers Act.

It only would if the president commits forces abroad without notifying congress within 48 hours and keeps them in a conflict for more then I believe 60 days (it may be 30) without a congressional approval. It isn't the end all we sometimes think it is. Basically created in the 70's to prevent a president from involving the US in another Vietnam type conflict with out a declaration of war.

 

[NirvanaFan]

It only would if the president commits forces abroad without notifying congress within 48 hours and keeps them in a conflict for more then I believe 60 days (it may be 30) without a congressional approval. It isn't the end all we sometimes think it is. Basically created in the 70's to prevent a president from involving the US in another Vietnam type conflict with out a declaration of war.

The War Powers Act does authorize the President to use force like you said. He has 60 days to take action and 30 days to pull troops out, for a total of 90 days. However, The War Powers Act only authorizes the president to initiate contact/force under certain situations. Those situations are, "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces" or with consent by Congress.

What Assad did was not an attack upon the US, it's territories or possessions, or it's armed forces. Trump definitely didn't get the consent of Congress before he authorized the attacks.


And, that doesn't even take into account the international treaties/laws that he may or may not have broken.

 

[livingston]

I think most of the leaders of these states like Iran and N. korea woke up this morning as one person on another site said ... With a horses head in bed with them ..

 

[DoD1776]

Russia said they're done telling the US their plans... great.