What would you do in Syria

[GMDino]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/07/hours-before-airstrikes-hillary-clinton-called-for-bombing-syrian-airfields.html

Quote:Hours before airstrikes, Hillary Clinton called for bombing of Syrian airfields

Published April 07, 2017 

US uses Tomahawk missiles in strike against Syria
[/url][url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/07/hours-before-airstrikes-hillary-clinton-called-for-bombing-syrian-airfields.html#]
Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state, gave a wide-ranging interview in New York Thursday where she called on the U.S. to carry out airstrikes on Syrian airfields in order to prevent more chemical attacks on its citizens.

"I really believe we should have and still should take out his air fields and prevent him from being able to use them to bomb innocent people and drop sarin gas on them,” Clinton made the comment during an interview with New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof at a women's summit.

Clinton said that she favored a more aggressive action against Assad, adding that not taking a tough stance on the Syrian president was one of her worst policy mistakes during her time as secretary of state under President Obama.

Her comments came in her first interview since losing the presidential election to Trump and hours before the U.S. launched a barrage of cruise missiles targeting a Syrian airfield in response to the deadly gas attack.

[Au165]

My questions is, what is the end game? Do you plan to go all in, because Assad is going to do what he has been doing for 6 years, one air strike isn't going to change that. If you go all in and take out Assad then who takes over, ISIS? We basically committed an act of war last night, I am not sure people are thinking this through completely.

While the knee jerk moral compass says we did the right thing, the long term consequences could be another middle eastern war that will bog us down for another decade. We go in we remove Assad and then we are stuck there until 2025 fighting ISIS. Since ISIS isn't an actual country that can be conquered, but rather an ideology, we spend way to much time, money, and American lives fighting something that can't be defeated with guns. Sound familiar?

[*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.

(04-07-2017, 05:04 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: And Russia is running their mouth.

Would be nice if CHINA (spoken with emphasis and duck face) had our back on this.

I find your constant digs at POTUS' physical appearance to be petty and in poor taste. Just as I did and expressed my distain when former Board members commented on Obama and his family in a similar manner. It just seems like I wasn't alone then.

[*bfine32*]

(04-07-2017, 07:19 AM)GMDino Wrote: http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/06/the-us-warned-the-russians-ahead-of-syria-missile-strikes-official.html

Oh, you're confusing getting permission with Military De-confliction to reduce collateral damage. I'm quite sure there was no request in our Military Communications. We did it frequently in Afghanistan with the local forces and I don't ever remember asking.

I will say it is amusing watching you and a couple others working overtime to try and put a negative spin on this.

[BmorePat87]

So what does everyone want to see happen now? How involved do you want to be in Syria?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-07-2017, 07:37 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: I'm definitely not a Trump fan. That said, I do think Mattis and Mathison do have their heads screwed on and are competent. Now that Bannon is out of security meetings, I'm feeling much better about the President getting competent intel on national security issues.

But, Bannon attended the NSA meeting yesterday after his removal. So I'm unsure of the significance of the move.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-07-2017, 09:24 AM)Au165 Wrote: My questions is, what is the end game? Do you plan to go all in, because Assad is going to do what he has been doing for 6 years, one air strike isn't going to change that. If you go all in and take out Assad then who takes over, ISIS? We basically committed an act of war last night, I am not sure people are thinking this through completely.

While the knee jerk moral compass says we did the right thing, the long term consequences could be another middle eastern war that will bog us down for another decade. We go in we remove Assad and then we are stuck there until 2025 fighting ISIS. Since ISIS isn't an actual country that can be conquered, but rather an ideology, we spend way to much time, money, and American lives fighting something that can't be defeated with guns. Sound familiar?

Money pit.

It's how the Mujahadeen got Russia to withdraw from Afghanistan. It's what ended the Cold War and caused the breakup of the former USSR. It's why Bin Laden attacked the World Trade Center. It's why our national debt has grown at an increased rate since 2001.

Plus, did anyone else pick up on the irony of calling on the entire world to end all forms of terrorism after launching 50 tomahawk missles into Syria to strike fear into the heart of Assad or was that just me?

[*bfine32*]

(04-07-2017, 09:50 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So what does everyone want to see happen now? How involved do you want to be in Syria?

I think the ball is in Assad's court (and Russia). If he retaliates he needs to be removed, if not just let him continue to fight his rebels while we work with a coalition (hopefully involving some ME powers) to eliminate ISIS and establish safe zones.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-07-2017, 09:00 AM)GMDino Wrote: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/07/hours-before-airstrikes-hillary-clinton-called-for-bombing-syrian-airfields.html

The Russians are using the Syrian air bases to conduct strikes against both the Syrian rebels who want to over throw Assad who we are arming, but also ISIS.

If we continue along this path it will eventually lead to a show down with Putin which is one of the reasons we have been tip toeing through the tulips in Syria.

[Au165]

(04-07-2017, 10:04 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I think the ball is in Assad's court (and Russia). If he retaliates he needs to be removed, if not just let him continue to fight his rebels while we work with a coalition (hopefully involving some ME powers) to eliminate ISIS and establish safe zones.

Assad is fighting his war against terrorists in his sovereign country the way he believes it should be fought. War is hell, but we should not pretend like we would not be considered lunatic murderers if we fought our wars in the information era. We have a long history of fighting wars in a barbaric and brutal manor. We killed almost 200k people in Japan using weapons far worse than Assad's, for no other reason than to show the Russians our power with our nuclear weapons. We knew Japan was going to surrender within 10 days, but we dropped them anyways. The BS about not wanting to risk lives in an invasion was debunked years later by high level generals and even the President later in his life. In the Western theater we carpet bombed the shit out of Dresden and Hamburg killing 25k+ civilians because we frankly were sick of the Nazi's retaking cities. We probably don't even want to talk about Napalm in Vietnam.

Our country is probably one of the top 5 murderers of civilians in the modern era. We are the world hypocrite. Is it wrong what Assad did? Yes. Should we be out there telling people how to fight their wars? No.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-07-2017, 09:50 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So what does everyone want to see happen now? How involved do you want to be in Syria?

Not at all.  I'm done with it personally.  

[WeezyBengal]

(04-07-2017, 09:24 AM)Au165 Wrote: My questions is, what is the end game? Do you plan to go all in, because Assad is going to do what he has been doing for 6 years, one air strike isn't going to change that. If you go all in and take out Assad then who takes over, ISIS? We basically committed an act of war last night, I am not sure people are thinking this through completely.  

While the knee jerk moral compass says we did the right thing, the long term consequences could be another middle eastern war that will bog us down for another decade. We go in we remove Assad and then we are stuck there until 2025 fighting ISIS. Since ISIS isn't an actual country that can be conquered, but rather an ideology, we spend way to much time, money, and American lives fighting something that can't be defeated with guns. Sound familiar?

In my opinion, I dont think there is a right answer. 

Do I want the US to be the "world police" and to get fully involved in the Syrian civil war? No, I dont. 

I did watch the news last night and found the images of 3 year old children shaking uncontrollably on the ground due to the side effects of the chemical attack to be absolutely heartbreaking, though. 

So, im stuck between two places. I dont want the US to get completely involved, but I do want repercussion for Assad's actions. I want the innocent people to be left alone and the rebels and Assad regime to battle it out. 

[*bfine32*]

(04-07-2017, 10:18 AM)Au165 Wrote: Assad is fighting his war against terrorists in his sovereign country the way he believes it should be fought. War is hell, but we should not pretend like we would not be considered lunatic murderers if we fought our wars in the information era. We have a long history of fighting wars in a barbaric and brutal manor. We killed almost 200k people in Japan using weapons far worse than Assad's, for no other reason than to show the Russians our power with our nuclear weapons. We knew Japan was going to surrender within 10 days, but we dropped them anyways. The BS about not wanting to risk lives in an invasion was debunked years later by high level generals and even the President later in his life. In the Western theater we carpet bombed the shit out of Dresden and Hamburg killing 25k+ civilians because we frankly were sick of the Nazi's retaking cities. We probably don't even want to talk about Napalm in Vietnam.

Our country is probably one of the top 5 murderers of civilians in the modern era. We are the world hypocrite. Is it wrong what Assad did? Yes. Should we be out there telling people how to fight their wars? No.

I suppose if we were forbidden to move forward because of the sins of our forefathers, we wouldn't get very far.

We've pretty much let him do as he pleases, until he showed us and the world that he did not comply with a peaceful demand from 2013.

[Au165]

(04-07-2017, 10:39 AM)WeezyBengal Wrote: In my opinion, I dont think there is a right answer. 

Do I want the US to be the "world police" and to get fully involved in the Syrian civil war? No, I dont. 

I did watch the news last night and found the images of 3 year old children shaking uncontrollably on the ground due to the side effects of the chemical attack to be absolutely heartbreaking, though. 

So, im stuck between two places. I dont want the US to get completely involved, but I do want repercussion for Assad's actions. I want the innocent people to be left alone and the rebels and Assad regime to battle it out. 

I agree, but pictures of children being burned alive by Napalm that we dropped or being disintegrated by nuclear bombs is probably pretty disturbing too. War is hell, and collateral damage happens. If Assad was targeting his own people I'd agree, but from what I have read it appears he is trying to kill rebels and like we have experienced ourselves in past wars separating enemy combatants from civilians is sometimes impossible.

[Au165]

(04-07-2017, 10:42 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I suppose if we were forbidden to move forward because of the sins of our forefathers, we wouldn't get very far.

We've pretty much let him do as he pleases, until he showed us and the world that he did not comply with a peaceful demand from 2013.

In 2015 we bombed a hospital in Afghanistan, we killed 42 people. The cockpit crew even questions if they should be bombing a hospital but were ordered to carry out the attack anyways. We got a slap on the wrist from the international community, no one launched tomahawk missiles at our airbases.

We do not live in a world where armies march on to a battlefield anymore, they fight surrounded by civilians and with that civilians die. You can disagree with Assad and his tactics, but he is conducting a war to protect his countries sovereignty, and collateral damage is a part of war. What we can't do is get outraged over collateral damage unless we can prove the intent was to kill civilians, which at this point we can not.

[BmorePat87]

(04-07-2017, 10:04 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I think the ball is in Assad's court (and Russia). If he retaliates he needs to be removed, if not just let him continue to fight his rebels while we work with a coalition (hopefully involving some ME powers) to eliminate ISIS and establish safe zones.

While I am in the same boat as MichaelSean, this is a reasonable line to draw. What kind of retaliation? Against his people or against us?

[*bfine32*]

(04-07-2017, 11:06 AM)Au165 Wrote: In 2015 we bombed a hospital in Afghanistan, we killed 42 people. The cockpit crew even questions if they should be bombing a hospital but were ordered to carry out the attack anyways. We got a slap on the wrist from the international community, no one launched tomahawk missiles at our airbases.

We do not live in a world where armies march on to a battlefield anymore, they fight surrounded by civilians and with that civilians die. You can disagree with Assad and his tactics, but he is conducting a war to protect his countries sovereignty, and collateral damage is a part of war. What we can't do is get outraged over collateral damage unless we can prove the intent was to kill civilians, which at this point we can not.

First of all: We shouldn't hold Trump accountable for Obama's mistakes. I am aware of a Air Support miscommunication the resulted in the death of 22 civilians in which a Doctors without Borders compound was bombed as afghan forces reported insurgents were occupying it. I am unaware of any planned bombing of a hospital.

Once again we have pretty much let Assad do as he wishes to "protect his country's sovereignty",  but he was told in 2013 that using Chemical weapons was a no-no. We could not let his blatant disregard of this demand go unanswered.   

[*bfine32*]

(04-07-2017, 11:14 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: While I am in the same boat as MichaelSean, this is a reasonable line to draw. What kind of retaliation? Against his people or against us?

Continued use of chemical weapons. As to attacking us: he won't do that.

[Au165]

(04-07-2017, 11:28 AM)bfine32 Wrote: First of all: We shouldn't hold Trump accountable for Obama's mistakes. I am aware of a Air Support miscommunication the resulted in the death of 22 civilians in which a Doctors without Borders compound was bombed as afghan forces reported insurgents were occupying it. I am unaware of any planned bombing of a hospital.

Once again we have pretty much let Assad do as he wishes to "protect his country's sovereignty",  but he was told in 2013 that using Chemical weapons was a no-no. We could not let his blatant disregard of this demand go unanswered.   

You said "sins of our forefathers", it was two years ago, it is a pattern of reckless disregard for civilian casualties that is not dependent on who is in charge. We were told in 1929 that waterboarding was illegal, however we have decided the end justifies the mean and decided we would do it anyways. As I said we are the world's biggest hypocrite when it comes to wars and what is and isn't allowed. You can try and hide behind Trump didn't do those, but we as a country did and yet somehow we still feel it is our place to tell people what is and isn't allowed in war. We try and set the rules but don't play by them ourselves.

We attacked a foreign country unjustified, i.e. not in defense of our own people and not in the midst of a recognized war. We by all military standards declared war on Syria, but hey we are the U.S. so we can do what we want.

[*bfine32*]

Has anybody ever seen the Cedric the Entertainer story about the difference between black folk and white folks is that whites hope and black wish. That keeps running through my mind in the Syrian situation only with the roles reversed. Obama hoped Syria would not act up....