What would you do in Syria

[Dill]

(04-09-2017, 02:32 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: This is only a debate because Trump took action...as opposed to letting the liberal media excuse inaction.

It's not a debate because Trump first signaled he would leave Syria alone--likely triggering the chemical attack--then chose to ignore an existing option (to act through the UN) in favor of warning Assad of an attack not striking any chemical storage facility, leaving the runway operable?

The people praising this action--can any of them explain how it relates to articulated long-term policy goals?

If you can step outside media framing of this incident, I would like to hear your evaluation.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-09-2017, 01:22 PM)Dill Wrote: It's not a debate because Trump first signaled he would leave Syria alone--likely triggering the chemical attack--then chose to ignore an existing option (to act through the UN) in favor of warning Assad of an attack not striking any chemical storage facility, leaving the runway operable?

The people praising this action--can any of them explain how it relates to articulated long-term policy goals?

If you can step outside media framing of this incident, I would like to hear your evaluation.

At best, the missle strike discourages Assad from killing civilians with chemical weapons. But, apparently killing them the old fashioned way as God intended is still on the table. So back to business as usual. (Including the airfield we "destroyed.) Definitely deserving of a standing ovation.

[*bfine32*]

(04-09-2017, 12:58 PM)Dill Wrote: You have not answered my question regarding the attack's relation to our national interest. And now you contradict your own justification of "national interest" by acknowledging Assad's respect for US forces.  Apparently, you cannot "paint" Trump's action in a good light on its own merits, appealing rather to an imagined world census (which you will readily reject when it goes against Trump) plus your family.

Rather than answer the question, you shift discussion to your amusement, to your loneliness, and to "extremists," a label which includes those who continue to reason with logic and evidence without drifting into reports of how they feel.

A "lone conservative" should have some incentive to reject consensus as a criterion of truth.

I do not know how many times I have to answer the same question before you consider it answered: We have Troops on the ground in a country where its leader employed Chemical Weapons. Is it that I don't bold it?

Apparently, you, Syria, Russia, and Iran are those that "continue to reason with logic and evidence without drifting into reports of how they feel." There is no "imagined" consensus. The leaders of the western world are in unison with their support.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

I'm surprised no one has denounced a cruise missile strike by someone in no imminent danger of dying by pressing a button inside a climate controlled room aboard a ship hundreds of miles away as cowardly.

That sort of video game mentality just takes the humanity out of combat.

Yet, the "usual suspect" is carrying on in their "usual suspect" ways.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-09-2017, 01:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I do not know how many times I have to answer the same question before you consider it accepted: We have Troops on the ground in a country where its leader employed Chemical Weapons. Is it that I don't bold it?

Apparently, you, Syria, Russia, and Iran are those that "continue to reason with logic and evidence without drifting into reports of how they feel." There is no "imagined" consensus. The leaders of the western world are in unison with their support.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/09/world/middleeast/us-troops-syria.amp.html

Why is Trump announcing to the enemy our battle plans after repeatedly claiming he wouldn't?

Were US troops in any danger from the chemical weapons attacks?

[*bfine32*]

(04-09-2017, 01:38 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: At best, the missle strike discourages Assad from killing civilians with chemical weapons. But, apparently killing them the old fashioned way as God intended is still on the table. So back to business as usual. (Including the airfield we "destroyed.) Definitely deserving of a standing ovation.

I can only assume you do not know the difference between chemical and conventional munitions and the Civilized world's stance on each. Chemicals stay in the air, the wind blows. Chemicals get in water supplies, folks drink. It is not as arbitrary as you think it is.

It's either that or you do know the difference but choose to ignore it.

[fredtoast]

(04-09-2017, 01:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I do not know how many times I have to answer the same question before you consider it answered: We have Troops on the ground in a country where its leader employed Chemical Weapons. Is it that I don't bold it?

No.  It is that you never explain why it is our national interest to have troops on the ground in Syria in the first place.

Wouldn't it make more sense to pull out the troops than send in missles, bombs, and more troops.

[JustWinBaby]

(04-09-2017, 01:22 PM)Dill Wrote: The people praising this action--can any of them explain how it relates to articulated long-term policy goals?

If you can step outside media framing of this incident, I would like to hear your evaluation.

I'm not sure why there is praise or criticism.  IMO, this was a necessary action as reprisal for failing to abide by the agreement, which was specifically to get rid of chemical weapons.  Almost literally the only way to have done less would have been to do nothing. 

So I'm not sure what you think this means in terms of long-run policy goals.  We were kind of backed into a corner by virtue of making the agreement in the first place.  Not that we shouldn't have gone that route, but Assad kind of forced our hand here.  I don't see how this bombing, on its own, represents any "long-term policy", much less a change in one.

And it's quality spin claiming Trump triggered an attack with weapons Syria wasn't supposed to have....it's Trump's fault, not a failure of the prior administration.  Nice.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-09-2017, 02:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I can only assume you do not know the difference between chemical and conventional munitions and the Civilized world's stance on each. Chemicals stay in the air, the wind blows. Chemicals get in water supplies, folks drink. It is not as arbitrary as you think it is.

It's either that or you do know the difference but choose to ignore it.

I don't understand how any of this answer somehow changes the implications of what I wrote.

Also, I don't need to tell an expert such as yourself sarin is a nonpersistent agent.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-09-2017, 03:15 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I'm not sure why there is praise or criticism.  IMO, this was a necessary action as reprisal for failing to abide by the agreement, which was specifically to get rid of chemical weapons.  Almost literally the only way to have done less would have been to do nothing. 

So I'm not sure what you think this means in terms of long-run policy goals.  We were kind of backed into a corner by virtue of making the agreement in the first place.  Not that we shouldn't have gone that route, but Assad kind of forced our hand here.  I don't see how this bombing, on its own, represents any "long-term policy", much less a change in one.

And it's quality spin claiming Trump triggered an attack with weapons Syria wasn't supposed to have....it's Trump's fault, not a failure of the prior administration.  Nice.

UN Security Council resolution 2118

Syria is in violation by using chemical weapons. Of course, Syria and the Russians blame the rebels. So who are we going to believe? US intelligence agencies Trump has already has discredited?

The US is also in violation of the resolution we attacked Syria for violating because IAW the legally binding resolution we signed, a second vote by the UN Security Council is required to authorize military force. That is what some call "checks and balances" so kids don't launch tomahawk missiles in the middle of the night like they launch Congressional investigations with their Twitter account.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

[Dill]

(04-09-2017, 03:15 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I'm not sure why there is praise or criticism.  IMO, this was a necessary action as reprisal for failing to abide by the agreement, which was specifically to get rid of chemical weapons.  Almost literally the only way to have done less would have been to do nothing. 

So I'm not sure what you think this means in terms of long-run policy goals.  We were kind of backed into a corner by virtue of making the agreement in the first place.  Not that we shouldn't have gone that route, but Assad kind of forced our hand here.  I don't see how this bombing, on its own, represents any "long-term policy", much less a change in one.

And it's quality spin claiming Trump triggered an attack with weapons Syria wasn't supposed to have....it's Trump's fault, not a failure of the prior administration.  Nice.

Seems if Assad either withheld some Sarin or acquired it after the previous batch was destroyed, it is clear he did not use it again while Obama was president. I do not regard that as "failure," however much Fox and McCain wanted a firestorm with dead Americans and Syrians.

Whether Trump "triggered" an attack is to be settled by looking at the sequence of events leading up to the attack. That Assad was in violation does not mean he did not take Tillerson's statements as permission, much as Saddam misread US intentions before his invasion of Kuwait.

At the moment, I do not think this means anything in terms of long term policy goals except that we don't seem to have any, which is a minimal requirement for judging whether Trump's act was a "success."  I agree that Assad forced Trump's hand (and Obama's before him). He is the bad actor here, not Trump.  But that does not mean Trump has acted wisely or effectively, and therein lies the concern.

I am not against air strikes. Perhaps they were necessary. But there was a framework in place for respecting international law, and Trump suddenly ignored it, acting impulsively, with no further plan that I can see. My hope is that Mattis and McMasters have more control than they have heretofore appeared to have.

[Dill]

(04-09-2017, 01:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I do not know how many times I have to answer the same question before you consider it answered: We have Troops on the ground in a country where its leader employed Chemical Weapons. Is it that I don't bold it?

Apparently, you, Syria, Russia, and Iran are those that "continue to reason with logic and evidence without drifting into reports of how they feel." There is no "imagined" consensus. The leaders of the western world are in unison with their support.

Bolding the point won't establish that the presence of US ground troops suddenly made it in the US interest to hammer an airbase near Homs without incapacitating it or destroying chemical stores. And repeating that "We have troops on the ground" speaks not all to the question of whether those troops might now be in more danger, after a weak attack.

Your claim that "wind" is a factor is also a non-factor. Sarin degrades and dissapates quickly. That is why doctors and paramedics can rush into affected areas and rescue people.  US troops are hundreds of miles away from the attack site in North East Syria.

And in your dialogue with Oncemore, you introduced an entirely different rationale for the attack on emotional/humanitarian grounds of the sort that Trump has heretofore sneered at. "I can look Syrian children in the face and tell them NO, you can't come here."

And you continue to fall back on the "consensus" line, now narrowed to the "western world," which means nothing coming from someone who has heretofore ignored international criticism of Trump.

 

[*bfine32*]

(04-09-2017, 09:08 PM)Dill Wrote: 1) Bolding the point won't establish that the presence of US ground troops suddenly made it in the US interest to hammer an airbase near Homs without incapacitating it or destroying chemical stores. And repeating that "We have troops on the ground" speaks not all to the question of whether those troops might now be in more danger, after a weak attack.

2) Your claim that "wind" is a factor is also a non-factor. Sarin degrades and dissapates quickly. That is why doctors and paramedics can rush into affected areas and rescue people.  US troops are hundreds of miles away from the attack site in North East Syria.

3) And in your dialogue with Oncemore, you introduced an entirely different rationale for the attack on emotional/humanitarian grounds of the sort that Trump has heretofore sneered at. "I can look Syrian children in the face and tell them NO, you can't come here."

4) And you continue to fall back on the "consensus" line, now narrowed to the "western world," which means nothing coming from someone who has heretofore ignored international criticism of Trump.

 

I numbered each and was ready to respond to each individually, then I decided enough is enough.

Bottom line is you condemn the move and I support it. I going to go outside and talk to the wall now.  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-09-2017, 09:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 1 I numbered each and 2was ready to respond to each individually, 3 then I decided enough is enough.

4 Bottom line is you condemn the move and 5 I support it. 6 I going to go outside and 7 talk to the wall now.  

Maybe you'll finally win that game of gotcha you always complain about when people repeat your statements back to you?

[*bfine32*]

(04-09-2017, 09:51 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Maybe you'll finally win that game of gotcha you always complain about when people repeat your statements back to you?

Or I could start a twitter account where having a bunch of clueless followers is a good thing. 

[Bengalzona]

If I were President....

my policy would be the "If you use chemical weapons, we visit you in the middle of the night with cruise missiles and drones." No warnings. Targeting things that are going to make your life miserable for a long time, provided they don't take you out first.

That would apply to anyone from Russia to the Vatican.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(04-09-2017, 11:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Or I could start a twitter account where having a bunch of clueless followers is a good thing. 

Trump is that you?!

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

[GMDino]

At least Hillary Clinton didn't do it....right?

Even if the #SyriaStrikes start WWIII, the whole planet gets nuked and we all die, that's still much better than if Hillary would have won.

— Mark Dice (@MarkDice) April 7, 2017