(04-11-2017, 03:46 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I thought it was free shipping on all orders over 25 million?
It's only free shipping for the end consumer. We delivered them free of charge to Syria.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(04-09-2017, 09:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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.
You will "talk to the wall"--as if you were not the one refusing dialogue Ok.
Your responses were not adequate or you'd have been happy to post them.
Trump is unstable, inconsistent, irrational--one policy one day, another the next, and a "lying press" to remind us of what he said yesterday. His foreign policy depends upon whom he last talked to yesterday and today's cable news reports.
This will not be the last time in this forum a Trump defender finds himself quickly painted into his own corner with the brush of logical consistency.
(04-10-2017, 04:20 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: What is a cruise missile, but a bottle rocket with a cellphone GPS anyone can strap explosives to and crash into innocent folks? It cheapens war. Especially for the Syrians when you don't hit the airstrip and flights resume within hours.
Except at $1.8 million each for 59 tomahawk missiles, we could have relocated all of the victims of the chemical attack, put $1 million each in their pockets, and stimulated our economy via the trickle down effect of voodoo economics.
First of all, consider all the collateral damage and the problems missiles cause to our ground forces in Syria who may have to move occupy after such an indiscriminate attack.
Secondly, a cruise missile is nothing more than an aerial IED and that's how cowards engage in combat.
I think what Bfine meant when he said drones strike "cheapen war" was that they are not expensive enough. Any coward in a conmac in Nevada can expend what, a few hundred thousand dollars with a Hellfire?
Whereas a cruise missiles costs one million plus, depending on the warhead and guidance. You cannot call that cheap. Multiply that 59 times and I have no trouble thinking whoever ordered that launch from a restaurant in Florida is some kind of hero. I don't care if it didn't do much damage other than to kill a few soldiers and children. It showed RESOLVE and a humanitarian side to Trump people have doubted since he swore he could look Syrian children in the eye and say "No, you can't come here."
When did Obama ever have the courage to run straight from a Fox news report to launch orders? We have a MAN for a president now and if the feminists don't like it too bad.
We need to stop making our leader look bad by questioning the instincts and impulses which drive his foreign policy.
(04-11-2017, 03:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, just out of curiosity, since we're in the business these days of using our military might to handle issues of human rights violations internal to a sovereign nation, how do we feel about Chechnya?
Chechnya??? Pick one
1. Last week we were in the business of using our military to handle human rights issues. This is this week.
2. Sorry Bels but that is an internal problem for Russia.
3. Unless you have some video of suffering children, I don't think we feel anything about Chechnya.
(04-10-2017, 01:50 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: 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.
Ulp . . . Russia too? I have heard they are not exactly defenseless.
Quote:President Donald Trump signaled Tuesday that he won’t send U.S. ground troops into Syria.
Trump ordered missile strikes last week targeting the airbase where U.S. intelligence believes the regime of Syrian dictator Bashar Assad launched a chemical weapons attack early last week that killed dozens of civilians, including children.
Trump’s about-face on Syria — the “America first” candidate was previously against military intervention, advising President Barack Obama years ago to “stay the hell out of Syria” and questioning the result of bombing Syria aside from “more debt and a possible long term conflict” — raised doubts about whether the outsider who was elected sans any political or military experience had any foreign policy doctrine.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer, however, was adamant this week that it’s still “America first.” And while the administration has indicated that it won’t tolerate chemical weapons use, officials have been relatively quiet about the prospect of additional U.S. responses, aside from Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin noting that economic sanctions are imminent.
“We’re not going into Syria,” Trump told Fox Business Network’s Maria Bartiromo in an interview that will air Wednesday morning.
“But when I see people using horrible, horrible chemical weapons,” he continued, segueing into how the Syrian regime violated an Obama-era agreement not to use chemical weapons without completing his initial thought.
In the Trump administration’s first statement last week condemning what it called Syria’s “reprehensible” attack, the president labeled Assad’s “heinous actions” a result of the Obama administration’s “weakness and irresolution” and faulted Obama for drawing a so-called red line but failing to act militarily once it was crossed. He doubled down Tuesday.
“Look, what I did should have been done by the Obama administration a long time before I did it,” Trump said. “And you would have had a much better — I think Syria would be a lot better off right now than it has been.”
I'd say he's being revisionist but he wouldn't know what that means and probably doesn't believe what he said anyway.
Dbag.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(04-09-2017, 08:39 PM)Dill Wrote: 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."
And, also, not able to deem the Obama actions a failure, at minimum.
You don't need long-term policy goals to say whether this action was good or bad. Even Hillary would have done the same. I think we're done here.
(04-12-2017, 05:05 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: And, also, not able to deem the Obama actions a failure, at minimum.
Huh?
Quote:You don't need long-term policy goals to say whether this action was good or bad. Even Hillary would have done the same. I think we're done here.
It doesn't seem like you a understand Dill was judging if the attack was a success or failure based upon long term policy or, put another way, our strategic goals.
What is good about launching an attack which violated the same UN resolution that Assad violated which prompted the attack?
Trump and Assad are guilty of violating the same agreement.
(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.
So in your opinion it is "good" because "almost literally the only way to have done less would have been to do nothing"?
And even though it isn't worth of praise, you're going to praise it anyway?
This was a stupid thing for the Assad regime to do. They were winning the war. The U.S. was leaving them alone. Russia was helping them.
I'm pretty sure that Russia had no idea that Assad would pull something like this. Ending the fighting in Syria was Putin's big 2017 project (besides rigging elections, which is more of an ongoing past time for him). The Russians had open dialogues with Iran, Turkey, the Kurds, Assad. Stabilizing Syria would be a feather in Russia's cap and help Putin's image building of Russia as a renewed superpower. I can pretty much guarantee that Assad is in Putin's doghouse over this (to the point the Russia may now consider removing him).
In that sense, the Trump admin made the right call here, even with the warning calls. We wanted to demonstrate force, but doing significant and/or permanent damage wasn't necessary. It was basically a staged and expensive temper tantrum. But it is a temper tantrum that can effectively make a point and may get the Russians to remove Assad without us having to do much more.
If Syria gets stabilized, demonstrated by the flow of refugees stopping and maybe many returning, then that will help stabilize Iraq and some of the political situations in Europe. Which, in turn, helps us. This strike may be cost effective.
(04-12-2017, 04:32 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Some thoughts.
This was a stupid thing for the Assad regime to do. They were winning the war. The U.S. was leaving them alone. Russia was helping them.
I'm pretty sure that Russia had no idea that Assad would pull something like this. Ending the fighting in Syria was Putin's big 2017 project (besides rigging elections, which is more of an ongoing past time for him).
Some thoughts as well. I hate to be the cynic, but it struck me that in a sense Russia actually is a beneficiary of the whole Syria conflict. It brings waves of refugees to Europe, which is by far the biggest talking point for the destructive parties Putin supports. You can't influence elections in a more effective way.
Why would Putin want a solution then? If there were peace in Syria... the meddling gets a lot harder.
Which is why I believe Putin actually wants nothing of that kind to happen. I don't think human life interests that man the tiniest bit. What are Russians doing in Syria anyway. Nothing to ensure an Assad victory or an end to the fighting and killing. Nothing which would bring peace. But avoiding through their presence that anyone else could.
(04-12-2017, 04:32 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: The Russians had open dialogues with Iran, Turkey, the Kurds, Assad. Stabilizing Syria would be a feather in Russia's cap and help Putin's image building of Russia as a renewed superpower. I can pretty much guarantee that Assad is in Putin's doghouse over this (to the point the Russia may now consider removing him).
In that sense, the Trump admin made the right call here, even with the warning calls. We wanted to demonstrate force, but doing significant and/or permanent damage wasn't necessary. It was basically a staged and expensive temper tantrum. But it is a temper tantrum that can effectively make a point and may get the Russians to remove Assad without us having to do much more.
If Syria gets stabilized, demonstrated by the flow of refugees stopping and maybe many returning, then that will help stabilize Iraq and some of the political situations in Europe. Which, in turn, helps us. This strike may be cost effective.
Your optimism is honored, but even if Putin isn't as sinister as I think he is, peace is as far away as ever, the strike didn't do anything stabilizing. The US made itself a referee throwing flags in a civil war, that's about it. I don't want to criticize the move or the US. Just the cynicism that goes with all this was so clear when Spicer talked barrel bombs. Which kill several thousands civilians every year. But no one is throwing a flag there, barrel bombs are "in bounds" and that needed to be clarified. That's the bottom line of the message to Assad, keep on killing, just do it by means we don't deem too despicable.
How did the plan to destroy Syria begin with the Bush administration if the CIA document is dated 1983?
I expected a lot better from someone calling himself Tyler Durden.
Please let Tyler know Turkey doesn't need to funnel ISIS into Syria because Iraq and Syria share a common border and they pretty much come and go as they please.
(04-12-2017, 05:05 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: And, also, not able to deem the Obama actions a failure, at minimum.
You don't need long-term policy goals to say whether this action was good or bad. Even Hillary would have done the same. I think we're done here.
You leave me totally puzzled, Justwin.
No, we are not able to judge Obama's actions a failure, especially after he removed Syria's nerve gas stockpiles and Assad did not use any for three years. And he did this without military action.
We don't need long term policy goals to say that Assad's actions were bad. But we do need them to judge whether ours were "successful" or effective, not to mention good or bad.
No special reason to believe Hillary would have reacted impulsively, ignoring diplomacy and prior agreements.
You get authoritarian style points for pronouncing the matter "done" before you hear anyone's response, though.
(04-13-2017, 07:49 PM)Dill Wrote: You leave me totally puzzled, Justwin.
No, we are not able to judge Obama's actions a failure, especially after he removed Syria's nerve gas stockpiles and Assad did not use any for three years. And he did this without military action.
We don't need long term policy goals to say that Assad's actions were bad. But we do need them to judge whether ours were "successful" or effective, not to mention good or bad.
No special reason to believe Hillary would have reacted impulsively, ignoring diplomacy and prior agreements.
You get authoritarian style points for pronouncing the matter "done" before you hear anyone's response, though.
Dill, nothing says "success" or "good" like a cruise missile attack on an airfield failing to put even a single pothole in the runway.
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: 416686247_404249095282684_84217049823664...e=659A7198]](https://scontent.fphx1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/416686247_404249095282684_8421704982366424390_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=3635dc&_nc_ohc=p8hMrwwk1IoAX8mnFLJ&_nc_ht=scontent.fphx1-2.fna&oh=00_AfBXs4gKHr4knFejO874dfV3zzLd_bq4GiUqHxGWFlwbug&oe=659A7198)
