What would you do in Syria

[GMDino]

(04-06-2017, 10:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No he didn't. Russia is not pleased. 

For once I hope you're right.

This seems like a boneheaded attack just to respond.

[HarleyDog]

(04-06-2017, 10:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I just hope the rest of the west backs up thier talk with action.

Not something to count on as we have seen in the past. We own this now, they will back away slowly. Not pissed about this attack at all.

[*bfine32*]

(04-06-2017, 10:36 PM)GMDino Wrote: For once I hope you're right.

This seems like a boneheaded attack just to respond.

Not really. He bombed a Air Field to let them know this is not cool. Any retaliation will be met with devastation of your Air power

[GMDino]

The President must get Congressional approval before attacking Syria-big mistake if he does not!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 30, 2013

[6andcounting]

If they thought the tomahawks were lethal, just wait until Trump initiates part two of the attack and starts his Twitter trash talk.

[6andcounting]

Sad Milo

[*bfine32*]

Trump just finished dinner with the second most powerful man in the world. I hope he said "Watch this. This is what you do the next time N. Korea wants to act the fool"

[JustWinBaby]

(04-06-2017, 10:24 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Now that Obama is no longer President, does "limited air strike with no boots on the ground" go back to being war again, or are will still pretending they are two different things?

We'll see where we go from here, but it's hard to imagine any different response from any other POTUS when chemical weapons killed children AFTER agreements to give up 100% of those weapons.

Trump will probably call this a carpet bombing and check off another campaign promise.

[JustWinBaby]

(04-06-2017, 10:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not really. He bombed a Air Field to let them know this is not cool. Any retaliation will be met with devastation of your Air power

Yeah, this is kind of Clinton-esque.  Like I said, we'll see how this plays out but this particular strike is about as close to doing nothing as you can get (besides actually doing nothing).

I expect both sides to make this out to be much, much more than it is.  The Administration, I think, we'll play this out as the "appropriate and measured" response to the use of chemical weapons.  Until Assad does something else, I think this is all there is.

[*bfine32*]

(04-06-2017, 11:17 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Yeah, this is kind of Clinton-esque.  Like I said, we'll see how this plays out but this particular strike is about as close to doing nothing as you can get (besides actually doing nothing).

I expect both sides to make this out to be much, much more than it is.  The Administration, I think, we'll play this out as the "appropriate and measured" response to the use of chemical weapons.  Until Assad does something else, I think this is all there is.

Well it's more than drawing a red line. I think this is a message to the world. Of course that could be "making much more than it really is". 

[JustWinBaby]

(04-06-2017, 11:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well it's more than drawing a red line. I think this is a message to the world. Of course that could be "making much more than it really is". 

If he really wanted to send a message, it would have been 45 - and exactly 45 - missiles.

I honestly cannot believe that wasn't the precise order. 

[NATI BENGALS]

Why did he need a teleprompter to give that 3 minute speech? Is he really unable to put together a few sentences without going off the rails?

Billionaire president launches air strikes from his florida golf resort follows up with a 3 minute speech off a teleprompter while talking in duck face.... Just really hard for me to get on board with that.

Should have pointed those missiles at Assad's palace.

[GMDino]

(04-06-2017, 11:24 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Why did he need a teleprompter to give that 3 minute speech? Is he really unable to put together a few sentences without going off the rails?

Billionaire president launches air strikes from his florida golf resort follows up with a 3 minute speech off a teleprompter while talking in duck face.... Just really hard for me to get on board with that.

Should have pointed those missiles at Assad's palace.

And they taped it and distributed it rather than go live.

[JustWinBaby]

Should have used drones and then said "ooops, we were targeting ISIL and made a mistake....our bad"

[*bfine32*]

(04-06-2017, 11:24 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Why did he need a teleprompter to give that 3 minute speech? Is he really unable to put together a few sentences without going off the rails?

Billionaire president launches air strikes from his florida golf resort follows up with a 3 minute speech off a teleprompter while talking in duck face.... Just really hard for me to get on board with that.

Should have pointed those missiles at Assad's palace.

Well knock me over with a feather

[Benton]

(04-06-2017, 09:00 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: This should have been taken care of during the Obama Administration. We should have sat down with  representatives of the Assad government and the non-ISIS rebels, Russia, Iran, Iraq, Turkey and representatives from the EU (all interested parties by ISIS) and hammered out an agreement.

But the time for that is past. We refuse to talk to Iran, one of Assad's buddies. Our relations with Russia is now stretched due to the Ukraine sanctions and their meddling in elections. The Turkish government has now transitioned from a liberal secular government to a conservative Muslim government which has doubled down on their anti-Kurd stance. Basically, we have no real strings to pull with parties that can influence things there. Sending ground forces isn't really an option (it is very possible they would get bombed by the Russians). All we can really do now is bomb ISIS and watch as the Assad government retakes the country with Russia's help.

Big win for Russia and Assad.

Agreed. When the allegations (by the UN) of war crimes came out, Obama and the EU should have taken advantage and forced him to sit down.

As far as the thread and what I would do at this point, offer help to the refugees. Get rid of the ridiculous travel ban and instead of spending billions blowing up the parts Assad and Putin aren't blowing up, spend ten of millions relocating and helping them. That's been my stance for the last couple years, hasn't really changed much.

[GMDino]

(04-06-2017, 11:36 PM)Benton Wrote: Agreed. When the allegations (by the UN) of war crimes came out, Obama and the EU should have taken advantage and forced him to sit down.

As far as the thread and what I would do at this point, offer help to the refugees. Get rid of the ridiculous travel ban and instead of spending billions blowing up the parts Assad and Putin aren't blowing up, spend ten of millions relocating and helping them. That's been my stance for the last couple years, hasn't really changed much.

Pfft.  No  "Tough Guy" points/votes for that. 

[*bfine32*]

(04-06-2017, 11:36 PM)Benton Wrote: Agreed. When the allegations (by the UN) of war crimes came out, Obama and the EU should have taken advantage and forced him to sit down.

As far as the thread and what I would do at this point, offer help to the refugees. Get rid of the ridiculous travel ban and instead of spending billions blowing up the parts Assad and Putin aren't blowing up, spend ten of millions relocating and helping them. That's been my stance for the last couple years, hasn't really changed much.

I would prefer to see the money used to establish safe spaces in their own country. Perhaps making the best option leaving your country needs revision. 

[Benton]

(04-06-2017, 11:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I would prefer to see the money used to establish safe spaces in their own country. Perhaps making the best option leaving your country needs revision. 

Not a bad idea, I just don't know if it would work given the track record of segregating populations in the ME. It seems like at some point either those who left want their territory back or whatever regime is in power at the time gets paranoid and wipes them out. Or finds out there's some value in the segregated area. 

And given Assad's willingness to kill innocents and noncombatants trying to get to non-ISIS rebels and ISIS fighters alike, I don't think it would take long until he attacked whatever area we relocated civilians to. And most likely, non-ISIS rebels or ISIS fighters would be happy to spread misinformation that they were hiding in safe zones trying to provoke more attacks against Assad.

I understand the trepidation, but I don't see any way it works if we leave the civilians there. Even with a militarized zone type arrangement where non-Assad civilians are protected by US/UN/EU troops. Then it's just a point of contention and waiting until one side attacks.

One thing, I don't think the US needs to take in all refugees. Some, sure. But I think with our resources we could help a large chunk of them relocate to other countries. Seriously, with some diplomacy and the worlds biggest logistics company (the US military!) we could move a lot of folks safely in a short time to ally counties.

[*bfine32*]

(04-06-2017, 11:59 PM)Benton Wrote: Not a bad idea, I just don't know if it would work given the track record of segregating populations in the ME. It seems like at some point either those who left want their territory back or whatever regime is in power at the time gets paranoid and wipes them out. Or finds out there's some value in the segregated area. 

And given Assad's willingness to kill innocents and noncombatants trying to get to non-ISIS rebels and ISIS fighters alike, I don't think it would take long until he attacked whatever area we relocated civilians to. And most likely, non-ISIS rebels or ISIS fighters would be happy to spread misinformation that they were hiding in safe zones trying to provoke more attacks against Assad.

I understand the trepidation, but I don't see any way it works if we leave the civilians there. Even with a militarized zone type arrangement where non-Assad civilians are protected by US/UN/EU troops. Then it's just a point of contention and waiting until one side attacks.

One thing, I don't think the US needs to take in all refugees. Some, sure. But I think with our resources we could help a large chunk of them relocate to other countries. Seriously, with some diplomacy and the worlds biggest logistics company (the US military!) we could move a lot of folks safely in a short time to ally counties.

Well the leaving and wanting their territory back part is not solved by facilitating movements to other countries

If he attacked a safe zone established by a coalition then that would be his last act as a leader of Syria and most likely one of his last moves while breathing

There's plenty of land in Syria and a population about twice that of NYC. No need to scatter them out across the globe.