Yea, I'm reading it's 50 Tomahawks, so far.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...a5314b56a08_story.html?utm_term=.4e78400eaa05
I'm going to go have agree with DSF here. A strategic strike cratering Assad's runways would be an appropriate response. Grounds his planes for a while and does so with little to no collateral damage risk. Message sent.
Good thing the war mongerer, Hillary, didn't get elected, we'd probably end up in another war!
Anyone heard from north Korea lately? That's a country Hillary surely would have gone to war with. Looks like we dodged another bullet by electing trump!
/s
The Syrian government carried out an air strike. That's the full extent of those printed words.
And if that airstrike hit a chemical stockpile?
How would we know the difference?
No where in that article is it printed that we do.
Because we don't know.
cough cough, what was that you were saying?
So he gassed a bunch of civilians, and we blew up one of his military bases 2 days later. That's actually a timely, appropriate response. I'm almost scared to say it was the right thing to do.
"American intelligence has established with high confidence that a Syrian government aircraft carried out the attack."
Look at the quote YOU made. No one said the aircraft carried the chemicals.
They are being selective in their words because they lack the information for the misleading context (outright lies) that you apply to them.
"American intelligence has established with high confidence that a Syrian government aircraft carried out the attack."
Look at the quote YOU copied. No one said the aircraft carried the chemicals.
They are being selective in their words because they lack the information for the misleading context (outright lies) that you apply to them.
Hillary Clinton: US should take out Assad's air fields
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/06/politics/hillary-clinton-syria-assad/index.html
You should get a clue before posting.
I kind of agree with this. This maybe be the only thing I've agreed with Trump doing so far this year. 50+ missiles at one base is a lot, they weren't fucking around. Let's definitely see how this plays out. It could go really badly or just fine. It's a dangerous chess game that is for sure.
what?
That's certainly a good way to run a country (/s)... Lets see how this plays out, it could really badly or just fine.
Wtf!
so let's get this straight, you just accused me of being a liar, which reality is that i was absolutely correct, which is exactly why Trump just launched a strike.
the absurdity of your calling me a liar for being accurate is hilarious though, typical of post-truthers.
You stand on a claim of which there is zero evidence, and you cite sources that do not name specifics to your conclusions.
Your idea of truth is hollow.
Take a big deep breath. Cause last time I checked Pixel wasn't running the country. Now I'm sure that before they carried out this airstrike they did risk assessments and ran the outcomes through a bunch of scenarios. You're just attacking people discussing this now for no reason other than trump-hate.
Then we'll go in AT THAT POINT. Right now, we have a civil war. The media and the White House don't really want people to understand what they're talking about right now. "Targetted Strikes" essentially mean we will destroy the goverment's ability to make war, gauranteeing that the uprising will win and take over the coutry.
By doing what we are talking about doing, we are actually planning to go to war for the rebels. If we do that, we then own all the consequences and have allied ourselves with those rebels - even though we'll have no control over them afterwards.
I like to think that we have a moral obligation to stop injustice in the world. However, this is a civil war. There is no 'right' side or 'wrong' side. There are only two sides, and neither will like us any better if we get involved.
Stay. Out.
The president does not need authorization to call a strike.....your so desperate you are grasping at straws!!Btw, can we now assume that since your team is in power you are ok with this non authorized strike?
I'm not asking for the children of other Americans to suffer and die in a quagmire. What kind of twisted logic did you use to arrive at such a conclusion?He won't be "taking that chance" and neither will you. You should be remember that at all times. You are asking for the children of other Americans to suffer and die in a quagmire with no clear route to victory and no apparent American interests involved.
Eight years of empty rhetoric and the pursuit of diplomatic solutions has failed and accomplished NOTHING. But apparently you're OK continuing with this NOTHING approach as Assad continues to target civilians and children with chemical weapons to suffer and die horribly. I highly value the lives of our soldiers and would never want to put them in harm's way unnecessarily...but damn, these are war crimes of epic proportions. Do you not value the lives of the innocent victims as well?Civil wars are horrible and gruesome and Syria is no exception. The correct course of action may be to engage with China, Europe, Russia and the UN to see if the world community can come up with incentives for Assad (and his opponents) not to engage in genocidal atrocities. Unilaterally running in like a bull in a china closet may feel good but it is doubtful that the outcome will be good.
Eight years of empty rhetoric and the pursuit of diplomatic solutions has failed and accomplished NOTHING. But apparently you're OK continuing with this NOTHING approach as Assad continues to target civilians and children with chemical weapons to suffer and die horribly. I highly value the lives of our soldiers and would never want to put them in harm's way unnecessarily...but damn, these are war crimes of epic proportions. Do you not value the lives of the innocent victims as well?
I'm not asking for the children of other Americans to suffer and die in a quagmire. What kind of twisted logic did you use to arrive at such a conclusion?
Eight years of empty rhetoric and the pursuit of diplomatic solutions has failed and accomplished NOTHING. But apparently you're OK continuing with this NOTHING approach as Assad continues to target civilians and children with chemical weapons to suffer and die horribly. I highly value the lives of our soldiers and would never want to put them in harm's way unnecessarily...but damn, these are war crimes of epic proportions. Do you not value the lives of the innocent victims as well?
Denial is ugly. Try being a little more unbiased. The WHO has confirmed that cases have improved after being treated for Sarin gas. First Responders have reported smelling heavy levels of chlorine. The BBC, who tends to be pretty Anti-American a lot of the time, has interviewed military intelligence folks that say flat out the chemicals would have burned up if there had been an explosion.
All the signs point toward the Syrians using chemical weapons.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39500947
Even AlJazeera is reporting it in an unbiased manner.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/04/syria-denies-chemical-weapons-idlib-170406103242116.html
Zero Evidence of chemical weapons? Bulllll Shitttt.
Btw, can we now assume that since your team is in power you are ok with this non authorized strike?
The president does not need authorization to call a strike.....your so desperate you are grasping at straws!!
All else aside Presidents should seek approval, but it is not required to launch unmanned weapons the way this was done. If Trump had inserted troops into Syria, "boots on the ground", then the War Powers Resolution would kick in. As American lives weren't at risk by direct involvement it isn't applicable. Obama could have launched at any time, however he sought Congressional approval but not because he was powerless. I suspect if the WPR were interpreted in such a way that all CIC functions needed approval of the Legislative Branch it would be struck down as unconstitutional.