What would you do in Syria

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(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.

Good. I expect to see the same people urging those Middle Eastern countries to accept more Syrian refugees that we would turn away to also urge those countries to overthrow Assaud instead of the US military.

Because I don't understand the mindset that we shouldn't risk American lives to accept refugees from Syria. But, we should send Americans overseas to their certain death to overthrow the government responsible for the Syrian refugees we don't want.

WTF?

[*bfine32*]

FWIW, the intention of this thread was to discuss what you would do, not if you condemn or support what was done. I do applaud Pat for trying to direct it back that way with his questions and to those that have tried to keep it looking that direction. I do know the nature of the beast that is this forum and of course it has and will continue to be a Did Trump do good or bad, and rightly so. But I would like to get feedback as to what you would do now.

[*bfine32*]

(04-07-2017, 02:58 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Good. I expect to see the same people urging those Middle Eastern countries to accept more Syrian refugees that we would turn away to also urge those countries to overthrow Assaud instead of the US military.

Because I don't understand the mindset that we shouldn't risk American lives to accept refugees from Syria. But, we should send Americans overseas to their certain death to overthrow the government responsible for the Syrian refugees we don't want.

WTF?

In America folks choose to be combatants, they don't choose to be targets of terrorism.

[Au165]

(04-07-2017, 02:55 PM)Benton Wrote: they do matter. But hopefully their deaths will be part of an effort that discourages Assad from killing more than seven times that.

End justifies the means, when we didn't have authority to make that decision. So what if it doesn't change his tactics in the way he is trying to quell the rebellion in his country? Are we prepared to remove him and create another Iraq power vacuum situation? If the answer is no, then we shouldn't have even started down the road. If the answer is yes, god help us because it'll lead to more ISIS type situations as someone needs to fill the void and hate tends to be the leading candidate.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

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

Apparently, Assad was attacking rebels in his own country. Trump's attack is stretching the War Powers Act and could escalate an already tenuous situation resulting in reprisals. I bet ISIS and Al-Qaeda are already working on using this as more recruitment propaganda.

[Au165]

(04-06-2017, 09:09 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Can it get worse than a genocidal dictator (ISIS is already there, so I know that)?

Step 1 assassinate Assad.
Step 2 see who fills the void.
Step 3 reevaluate the situation.

ISIS fills the void and has complete control of his chemical weapon stock pile to spread jihad with.

Have we ever over thrown a government and it not come back to bite us?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-07-2017, 01:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Same way we could bomb Lybia in 2011. We are there in a supporting role.

Supporting who?

[*bfine32*]

(04-07-2017, 03:08 PM)Au165 Wrote: ISIS fills the void and has complete control of his chemical weapon stock pile to spread jihad with.

Have we ever over thrown a government and it not come back to bite us?

Getting King George out of here has worked pretty good so far.

[Au165]

(04-07-2017, 03:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Getting King George out of here has worked pretty good so far.

So the key is to make it work is to remain there forever to govern. Interesting idea.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-07-2017, 01:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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.

I agree. The went with the lies to garner international support and the necessary legal rigamaroll.

Quote: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.

Syria is already a civil war and a religious proxy war. Throw in Russia on one side and the US on the opposition and it has the potential to be another Vietnam only worse.

[Belsnickel]

(04-07-2017, 03:16 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Syria is already a civil war and a religious proxy war. Throw in Russia on one side and the US on the opposition and it has the potential to be another Vietnam only worse.

I don't disagree, which is why I say I don't know what I would've done or what we should do. I think Assad is like 1990s Saddam and he needs to go, but is that a quagmire we should involve ourselves in more than we already are? I am uncertain about that for the very reasons you posit here.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-07-2017, 01:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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?

Not surprisingly the Muslim countries are split along sectarian lines.

[*bfine32*]

(04-07-2017, 03:16 PM)Au165 Wrote: So the key is to make it work is to remain there forever to govern. Interesting idea.

Not necessarily to govern, but to maintain a presence. Must like we did when we over threw that Hitler guy.

[*bfine32*]

(04-07-2017, 03:22 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Not surprisingly the Muslim countries are split along sectarian lines.

Which side are you on?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-07-2017, 02:00 PM)Au165 Wrote: There was no attack on U.S. soldiers or sovereign territory. The president of the united stats only has the ability to initiate military response in these issues against foreign countries, otherwise it must come through congress.

It's not just limited to soldiers and territory, but also includes national security interests which is a euphemism which could encompass almost any situation.

In this case , the Trump legal team will argue deterring the use and spread of chemical weapons fulfills the national security requirement and Trump didn't have the necessary time to notify Congress and that doing so would compromise the secrecy needed to carry out the attack if he did.

[Au165]

(04-07-2017, 03:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not necessarily to govern, but to maintain a presence. Must like we did when we over threw that Hitler guy.

You mean when we divided the country in half and gave half of it to the USSR? So we going to give Russia half of Syria this time? How does that work? Does it escalate Cold War like tensions too?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-07-2017, 02:01 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think that striving for the goal of 0.7% of our national income on foreign aid, ODA specifically, would be a much better investment long term than continually growing the size of our already massive military industrial complex. We are a part of the DAC, and the goal for all of those countries is supposed to be that 0.7% mark. We give more in dollars than other countries, but we're still sitting below the 0.2% mark, which will likely go down in the next couple of budget cycles.

I think that the goodwill generated from foreign aid, if we redirected some of that from defense, would be a huge boost to us as a nation in a number of ways, including financially. But that's just my opinion.

Edit: also, affected, not effected. Affect is the verb, effect is the noun.

That would go towards solving the underlying problems creating terror organizations rather than creating more.

[*bfine32*]

(04-07-2017, 03:37 PM)Au165 Wrote: You mean when we divided the country in half and gave half of it to the USSR? So we going to give Russia half of Syria this time? How does that work? Does it escalate Cold War like tensions too?

If that is a requirement to obtain peace; as it beat the alternative or should we have just let Hitler run his sovereign country? I think the jews in Germany may have been OK with the divided country

Also like Germany once they are stable and willing they can reunite.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-07-2017, 02:04 PM)Au165 Wrote: Under the Rome statute this particular case does not pass muster as it was clearly excessive to the military gain we achieved. The U.S. lied about it to start claiming it was an accident, but eventually conceded it was intentional. They lied because they knew that the gains were not enough to justify the collateral damage. Small arms fire does not require a flattening of a civilian hospital. We ended up paying off the families of all the casualties because we weren't justified in killing them.

With the additional details you provided (if true, and I don't know if they are or aren't) would indicate our actions were not in keeping with the law of land warfare as taught to me.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-07-2017, 02:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Never said it was OK, simply gave the reason we did it. perhaps we have learned from Iraq and that is why we haven't committed to Syria

No, you didn't say it was okay, but I got the impression your intent was to defend it.