Gas Attack In Syria

[*bfine32*]

(04-13-2018, 10:52 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Following a unified strike like they did with Libya is the best approach if you're going to attack someone.

I must say I'm glad we didn't fly solo on this and it is what I said I wished for very early in this thread, but I was told it would take some big measure from the UN? 

[GMDino]

(04-13-2018, 11:02 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Happy friday the 13th!!

Quick question. Do you lose the element of surprise if you tweet out DAYS in advance your intentions?

Well he did say they took out 20% of the Syrian Air Force with the last strike...on an empty airstrip that was repaired and back in operation a couple days later. 

So a week's notice will probably bring about an end to the war.  

[BmorePat87]

(04-13-2018, 11:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I must say I'm glad we didn't fly solo on this and it is what I said I wished for very early in this thread, but I was told it would take some big measure from the UN? 

I don't know what the reference at the end is in regards to, but even if I disagree with military action, I'm glad we're not in it alone.

[*bfine32*]

(04-13-2018, 11:17 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I don't know what the reference at the end is in regards to, but even if I disagree with military action, I'm glad we're not in it alone.

That would require reading the thread. But to give you cliff notes you can read posts 5 and 6

[NATI BENGALS]

For some reason i feel a little uneasy with Trumps "best people" leading us into conflict. No idea why I would feel that way.

It didnt work in Iraq when we let Saddam go down the way he did with a trial by his own people. Maybe its time to just cut off the head of the snake in Syria. Same old hasnt really given us desired results.

[GMDino]

As an aside I wonder how Trump's non supporters will defend his weekend golf trip while this military action is going on?

[*bfine32*]

(04-13-2018, 11:28 PM)GMDino Wrote: As an aside I wonder how Trump's non supporters will defend his weekend golf trip while this military action is going on?

Guess we'll just have to see how many threads are started in the forum doing so. Over/under at 1: I got under. 

[BmorePat87]

(04-13-2018, 11:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: That would require reading the thread. But to give you cliff notes you can read posts 5 and 6

You suggested a UN operation and Matt responded by stating that Russia would likely veto it as he thinks it requires a security council vote. He is correct that it would require a security council vote and Russia has veto power as a permanent member. Their last two vetoes were over investigating and enacting sanctions in response to Assad's chemical use, so Matt's comment has merit.


With regards to you stating that you were told we'd need a big UN vote to not go solo, that doesn't seem to be the case. Matt responded only to a UN response, not a NATO or general US/UK/France allied response which does not require the UN's approval. 


Seems to just be a misunderstanding. Moving forward, though, a good discussion is what does Turkey do?

[GMDino]

(04-13-2018, 11:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Guess we'll just have to see how many threads are started in the forum doing so. Over/under at 1: I got under. 

If you say so.

I guess no non supporter will step up to defend it then.

[NATI BENGALS]

New rule?

You are not allowed to order military strikes, while under investigation for colluding with allies of the target, without congressional approval.

Or no? Is that asking too much?

[*bfine32*]

(04-13-2018, 11:32 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You suggested a UN operation and Matt responded by stating that Russia would likely veto it as he thinks it requires a security council vote. He is correct that it would require a security council vote and Russia has veto power as a permanent member. Their last two vetoes were over investigating and enacting sanctions in response to Assad's chemical use, so Matt's comment has merit.


With regards to you stating that you were told we'd need a big UN vote to not go solo, that doesn't seem to be the case. Matt responded only to a UN response, not a NATO or general US/UK/France allied response which does not require the UN's approval. 


Seems to just be a misunderstanding. Moving forward, though, a good discussion is what does Turkey do?

I suggested a coalition attack from members of the UN and that's what happened unless France and Britain are no longer members of the UN. I really didn't expect the Ivory Coast  to join in. Perhaps bfine's comments have merit. Obviously a misunderstanding, just pointing pout what was mentioned in this thread. 

[GMDino]

Welp.

General Dunford at Pentagon briefing: "this wave of the operation is over."

Secretary of Defense Mattis: "Right now, we have no additional attacks planned." pic.twitter.com/14i5XhD3CL

— Omar Ghabra (@omarghabra) April 14, 2018

[GMDino]

Statement by the Ambassador of #Russia to the US on #Syria “Such actions will not be left without consequences” pic.twitter.com/zorvQpdmZD

— Strategic Sentinel (@StratSentinel) April 14, 2018

[HarleyDog]

(04-13-2018, 11:02 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Happy friday the 13th

Today is my wife’s birthday. So far today we’ve had a death in the family, a job interview, and now the air strikes. She asks me “why is all this happening on my birthday?

It’s Friday the 13th.

[*bfine32*]

(04-13-2018, 11:33 PM)GMDino Wrote: If you say so.

I guess no non supporter will step up to defend it then.

I go with the under (of 1) of how many threads get started to defend Trump's golf trip this weekend. Do you want to take the over or just admit you're just kinda running your mouth? You're the one that brought it up. why not stand behind your comments?

[GMDino]

(04-13-2018, 11:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I go with the under (of 1) of how many threads get started to defend Trump's golf trip this weekend. Do you want to take the over or just admit you're just kinda running your mouth? You're the one that brought it up. why not stand behind your comments?

Okay...I stand by  wondering how Trump's non supporters will defend his weekend golf trip while this military action is going on. 

Not sure how that relates to "threads started" but you do you.

[*bfine32*]

(04-13-2018, 11:46 PM)GMDino Wrote: Okay...I stand by  wondering how Trump's non supporters will defend his weekend golf trip while this military action is going on. 

So you don't want to go with the over or under of 1. Got it. Hey at least Dill says you speak for him on all things Trump, so that makes 2 of you.

I realize this is a bad night for you as it appears the US was part of a coalition attack that bombed folks that gassed there own people, while Trump was at the helm, But hang in there, he might tweet something silly in the nest 24 hours. Then, then your points will have "merit". 

One last chance to be forthright (I already know the answer). Do you go with the over or under of 1 post started in this forum supporting Trump's golf trip during this bombing? After all you brought it up. 

[Dill]

(04-13-2018, 11:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I suggested a coalition attack from members of the UN and that's what happened unless France and Britain are no longer members of the UN. I really didn't expect the Ivory Coast  to join in. Perhaps bfine's comments have merit. Obviously a misunderstanding, just pointing pout what was mentioned in this thread. 

Your exact phrase was "a coalition of UN forces," which this was not, even if the US, France and GB belong to the UN. They were not acting in the name of the UN, and so not "UN forces."

But I agree that Bfine's comments have some merit because--1) a COALITION of powerful countries sends a much stronger message than the US acting unilaterally. The response cannot be attributed simply to Trump's impulsivity. And 2) retaliation is much harder against three countries. Harder for Russia to manage, militarily and in terms of PR. You could add the Israeli strike in here too, thought that will not mean much to the rest of the world.

[*bfine32*]

(04-14-2018, 12:02 AM)Dill Wrote: Your exact phrase was "a coalition of UN forces," which this was not, even if the US, France and GB belong to the UN. They were not acting in the name of the UN, and so not "UN forces."

But I agree that Bfine's comments have some merit because--1) a COALITION of powerful countries sends a much stronger message than the US acting unilaterally. The response cannot be attributed simply to Trump's impulsivity. And 2) retaliation is much harder against three countries. Harder for Russia to manage, militarily and in terms of PR.

Yeah, I should have said a joint attack from US, France, and Britain instead of UN forces.... because hairs must be split. But regardless the response was exactly what I hoped for.

[Dill]

(04-13-2018, 10:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes "solid accepted logic" means that someone who has never been involved in politics thinking we should not invade Syria in 2013 is the same as someone saying they like to rape 5 year olds. 

At least Dill has your back, but I doubt ant rational folks do. 

LOL the "rational folks" who aren't bothered by Trump's flip-flopping.