What would you do in Syria

[*wildcats forever*]

(04-07-2017, 12:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Should we pull out of NATO and become isolationists or is there a checklist of criteria for humanitarian crisis (BTW what is the plural for that) we can afford to fix.  

Crises

[*bfine32*]

(04-07-2017, 12:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: We need to be involved in international politics only when it effects us financially. 

If you are so concerned about human suffering then why haven't you been calling for Billions in aid to Africa?

"Not really interested in spending money on food and clean water.  But I sure love killing Arabs."

Have you ever thought that being considered the world's most powerful military force effects us financially?

I have probably listed the hypocrisy about our turning a blind eye to Africa than anyone in this forum. So you can take your typical clueless "Fred Retort" and kick rocks.

[CageTheBengal]

There's a lot of talk about us not playing the world police but the fact is that is the role the world has put us in and until some real steps have taken place to reduce our role in the world (Which is a two way street U.S. has to want to give up power as well.) and other countries are building up their military instead of relying on ours we need to play the part.

I don't think we need to spend more money on military or anything like that we are incredibly powerful but to say we should take in refugees but not drop the hammer on a leader who is using nerve gas on innocent civilians is a joke. The line needs to be drawn and we should be doing both.

There is no easy fix to the middle east and I don't think that should be our goal but the most powerful nation in the world is in the driver seat when it comes leaving an impression on weaker countries whether the citizens of the most powerful country like it or not.

[WeezyBengal]

(04-07-2017, 11:38 AM)Au165 Wrote: The President must get Congressional approval before attacking Syria-big mistake if he does not!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) 30 августа 2013 г.


What I am saying is stay out of Syria.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) 4 сентября 2013 г.



If Obama attacks Syria and innocent civilians are hurt and killed, he and the U.S. will look very bad!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) 30 августа 2013 г.




AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA - IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) 5 сентября 2013 г.


   President Obama, do not attack Syria. There is no upside and tremendous downside. Save your "powder" for another (and more important) day!
   — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) 7 сентября 2013 г.

People are allowed to change their minds.  

Things change. Life experiences change our viewpoints on things. We mature. 

The mentality or stance I had on certain topics 2 years ago is completely different than what it is now. There's nothing wrong with that. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-07-2017, 11:40 AM)bfine32 Wrote: If you think this country doesn't do everything in its power to reduce collateral damage and demonstrates a "pattern of reckless disregard for civilian casualties" then we disagree.

It has been explained to you at least twice. We have let him do as he pleased until he showed the world that he didn't have to listen to a mandate not to use chemical weapons.

Just as I would hope if it is found that Iran is using their uranium to develop nuclear weapons we would intervene.

Why haven't we intervened in North Korea?

[Au165]

(04-07-2017, 01:01 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: People are allowed to change their minds.  

Things change. Life experiences change our viewpoints on things. We mature. 

The mentality or stance I had on certain topics 2 years ago is completely different than what it is now. There's nothing wrong with that. 

The legality changed? As he said you can't launch an attack on a foreign government without consulting congress.

[WeezyBengal]

(04-07-2017, 01:02 PM)Au165 Wrote: The legality changed? As he said you can't launch an attack on a foreign government without consulting congress.

Medical marijuana is now legal in Ohio. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-07-2017, 11:50 AM)GMDino Wrote: I'l say that IF President Trump is getting his information from the military and not the television he knows more than we do and he get  more leeway as President ahn as a civilian.

I will also add that Trump is HORRIBLY inconsistent with everything.  He says one thing one day and changes it completely the next based on his "feelings".  He even does this with his own personal worth.

Add to that that he will say because HE decided it it is right...after all he'll tell you he's smart. 

Trump has undermined his own generals and intelligence agencies. Why should anyone trust them if He doesn't?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-07-2017, 12:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course you're entitled to your opinion. I just hope you consider the second and third affects of our inaction, once we drew a line; regardless if you agree or not that the line should have never been drawn.

As to the rest. I hope you see how feeble your attempt to draw a blatant disregard for human life from this government is by the sporadic/unintentional (hospital) and inconsequential (waterboarding) examples you have provided. 

We invaded Iraq over complete bullshit.

[*bfine32*]

(04-07-2017, 01:01 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Why haven't we intervened in North Korea?

We have, just not with force.....yet.

[*bfine32*]

(04-07-2017, 01:10 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: We invaded Iraq over complete bullshit.

The reason provided was complete bullshit; however, Saddam's reign was similar to that of Assad's.

[*bfine32*]

It appears a lot of the Middle Eastern countries are supporting this move. I would say that's a step in the right direction.

[*bfine32*]

(04-07-2017, 01:02 PM)Au165 Wrote: The legality changed? As he said you can't launch an attack on a foreign government without consulting congress.

He let them know and yes he can in a reaction to an attack.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-07-2017, 12:18 PM)Au165 Wrote: Well to  use your own stance, your living in the rear view mirror, Trump didn't draw that line. Trump could have taken a different approach but he CHOSE to stand behind that line that was drawn by his predecessor.

Not feeble at all, outside the U.S. it is well know we are fine with collateral damage to further our own interests, and quite often have done so over the last hundred years. Water boarding violated international law, but we never were held accountable. We admitted we broke international law by bombing a hospital on purpose (And we did admit it was on purpose, flight recordings prove that), but still weren't held accountable. The whole point is we choose which rules we follow in times of war so why can't other countries?

Not disagreeing, but just a clarification. The military can attack a hospital if it is being misused by the enemy for military purposes or if you're receiving fire from it. Even then you should limit the damage if possible.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-07-2017, 12:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not sure what change of heart you are referring to. If your referring to the use of Chemical weapons that wasn't a demand laid down by the "MAGA and America First crowd." If you are referring to vetting of refugees; I'm unaware of any change of heart.

You can start with the leader of the MAGA movement himself and then his supporters.

Maybe this is the pivot to the 2008 version of Donald Trump?

[GMDino]

(04-07-2017, 01:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: He let them know and yes he can in a reaction to an attack.

I was under the impression it would be a reaction to an attack on America.  Or it's assets, I suppose, too.

How did this gas attack, while horrific, fall into those categories?

[*bfine32*]

(04-07-2017, 01:42 PM)GMDino Wrote: I was under the impression it would be a reaction to an attack on America.  Or it's assets, I suppose, too.

How did this gas attack, while horrific, fall into those categories?

Same way we could bomb Lybia in 2011. We are there in a supporting role.

[Belsnickel]

(04-07-2017, 01:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The reason provided was complete bullshit; however, Saddam's reign was similar to that of Assad's.

Indeed it was, primarily a decade before we invaded, but Saddam was a piece of shit. I just wish that we had gone with that rationale rather than the trumped up reasoning. I think we would be in a much better mindset about Iraq than we are today and it could have helped the public attitude support an actual rebuilding effort.

(04-07-2017, 01:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It appears a lot of the Middle Eastern countries are supporting this move. I would say that's a step in the right direction.

Assad's relationship with Iran is what has most of them supporting this, I'm guessing. I have wanted us to topple Assad for a long time, never being one that was turning a blind eye to his tactics because of the "enemy of my enemy" position a lot of people were using. I personally don't know what I would've done here, or what we should do. I do think he should have gone to Congress first, but I'm also one that thinks the authority of the executive to initiate foreign conflict has become far too great and needs to be reigned in overall.

[*bfine32*]

These are some of the countries that support the attack:

Saudi Arabia
Turkey
France
Germany
England
Australia
Israel

Here are some that condemn it:
Iran
Russia


Which side are you on?

[fredtoast]

(04-07-2017, 12:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Have you ever thought that being considered the world's most powerful military force effects us financially?

Yes.  I think about that all the time.  That is why i know it will eventually cripple us.

Just look how it effected us financially when we were the leader of the "coalition" that invaded Iraq.

Trying to win the "biggest dick" competition is one of the main reasons the USSR collapsed.  The money we are spending to have the biggest pile of weapons will not improve our country long term.  There are a lot better things we could be doing with that money.