U.S. Launched Tomahawk Strikes on Syria

[tk1313]

12 hours ago, Mark1 said:

More like Obama made an idiotic move by declaring a red line, but then when it was crossed, actually made the correct decision to reassess the situation and move forward in a logical manner not dominated by emotion or ego.  In the time between the red line being "established", and confirmation that it had been crossed, the situation in Syria had fundamentally changed.  ISIS surged and made huge gains in that time.  To weaken the Assad regime with military strikes would have only served to bolster ISIS's advance, as Assad's government forces were their primary resistance at the time.

Destroying the Assad regime would have left a power vacuum that ISIS would have been in the best position of all the militant groups to fill.  The Obama administration could have never said as much, but Assad went from our chief enemy in Syria, to the lesser of two evils.  As such, targeting him was a bad option, and allowing the Russians to help broker a WMD transfer was the best among a buffet of shit sandwiches.

Yes, it was foolish to established a "red line".  But all those in the partisan conservative camp that love to attack him over destroying U.S. credibility are short sighted, simple minded, and exploiting a political faux pas for political purposes while tacitly implying that they expected him to make a stupid move with respect to Syria just to keep his word.

I'm no Obama fan, but I'm able to admit I was happy to have someone in the office mature enough to eat their pride in order to do what's appropriate despite the personal hit they may have to take.  I have zero faith that we enjoy the same with the current administration.  I hope active duty members are willing to sacrifice their lives for a Trump dick measuring contest, because 4-8yrs is plenty of time for foreign actors to affront his precious ego.

Get the popcorn out if Assad has the balls to call Trumps "bluff" and use chemical weapons again.  A personality such as Trumps would have no choice but to escalate the situation.  Escalation means weakening Syrian government forces, which leaves 15 militant factions on equal footing to fill the power vacuum with none of them quite having the strength to truly accomplish it.  Cue the quagmire.  Hopefully the Joint Chiefs have heads on their shoulders and are able to hold onto Trumps reigns.

I'm curious to see how this affects U.S. freedom of operations inside Syrian borders and airspace as up until now we were effectively the enemy of Assad's enemy and left alone to operate as necessary.

Why didn't he assess the situation and "eat his pride" prior to establishing the red line is my only point. And my first post should've said "Mad Dawg" instead of Trump because I have every reason to believe Trump pretty much asked Mattis what his response should be (as he should).

But sorry, no... Obama doesn't get any partial credit from me for "taking a step back" from the situation after a foreign government gasses its own citizens. And if we're talking about the rise of ISIS being a major reason why Obama couldn't be stronger in his stance, I'm just going to blame him for that one as well because he went against our military leaders' advice and pulled out of Iraq for the sake of his 'legacy' (fvcking tired of hearing about his legacy as well).

Saddam was an evil piece of sh!t who tortured his dissidents into submission. If you're fine with accepting the necessary evil of dictators being in charge and violating human rights for the sake of "peace in the Middle East" that's your opinion. We're by far the greatest nation on Earth, so personally I think we can do better than that.

Edit to Add: The reason I'm so forcefully behind the missile attack and somewhat giving credit to Trump is because I believe Trump has enough sense to rely on Mattis's good judgment. A vast majority of our previous presidents (Republican and Democrat) have ridden on the backs of military leadership for so long that they thought themselves capable of assessing military situations on their own, contrary to military opinion... And it pretty much destroyed a lot of good hard military work and progress. Examples: Obama in Iraq/Syria and George H.W. with not ending Saddam's bullsh!t when he had the chance.

Edited April 7, 2017 by tk1313

[RTB]

48 minutes ago, No2bonus said:

He was 100% right about there not being WMD in Iraq.

I'll probably take some grief for this, but technically, there were thousands of WMD shells found in Iraq after the 2003 Gulf War, at least according to the NY Times.  Now, these weren't part of an active program to produce new weapons, but they were there...

Edited April 7, 2017 by RTB
Can't form a complete sentence...

[Guest No2bonus]

22 minutes ago, RTB said:

I'll probably take some grief for this, but technically, there were thousands WMD shells found in Iraq after the 2003 Gulf War, at least according to the NY Times.  Now, these weren't part of an active program to produce new weapons, but they were there...

The premise for the attack was under an active WMD program. "The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West."

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

[RTB]

5 minutes ago, No2bonus said:

The premise for the attack was under an active WMD program. "The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West."

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

I realize that.  But to say there were no WMDs is wholly inaccurate.  Not arguing that the premise for the invasion, an active weapons program, was inaccurate (despite the collective opinions of most of the world's intel communities).  Just pointing out that anyone claiming there were NO WMDs is wrong.

Edited April 7, 2017 by RTB

[Guest No2bonus]

10 minutes ago, RTB said:

I realize that.  But to say there were no WMDs is wholly inaccurate.

You are using a play on words.

I don't think you realize that UN inspectors went in and blew up, destroyed, dismantled, or buried a lot of that stuff during the inspection program in the Bill Clinton era. Of course there is going to be remants there because the inspectors couldn't fly the WMD out of Iraq. Why would they, its WMD?

Before CNN lost its credibility, they showed what the UN inspectors were doing inside Iraq. One of the inspectors was actually CIA. Their video footage showed where stuff was buried and how things were dismantled or blown up. I was in high school and remember the video footage.

Edited April 7, 2017 by No2bonus

[RTB]

Just now, No2bonus said:

I don't think you realize that UN inspectors went in and blew up, destroyed, or buried a lot of that stuff during the inspection program in the Bill Clinton era. Of course there is going to be remants there because they couldn't fly the stuff out of Iraq. Why would they, its WMD?

Before CNN lost its credibility, they showed what the UN inspectors were doing inside Iraq. One of the inspectors was actually CIA. Their video footage showed where stuff was buried and how things were dismantled or blow up.

You don't think I realize?  What a jackass statement to make.  Well aware of what was going on between 1993-2003...since I was flying over it all the time, we tended to keep up with current events over there.

Many of the areas 'discovered' post 2003 were apparently not documented from previous inspection programs.  They had been lost by Saddam's regime or hidden from inspectors years before.

 

[Guest No2bonus]

13 minutes ago, RTB said:

You don't think I realize?  What a jackass statement to make.  Well aware of what was going on between 1993-2003...since I was flying over it all the time, we tended to keep up with current events over there.

Many of the areas 'discovered' post 2003 were apparently not documented from previous inspection programs.  They had been lost by Saddam's regime or hidden from inspectors years before.

 

If you were aware of that then you should have not referenced a NY times article. The last time I checked, the NY times isn't factual intelligence. If you want to suck your thumb and call people jackasses over WMD then you can debate yourself. You flew over the area, stayed at a Holiday Inn Express in Balad, and read a NY Times article so you're the expert. I guess my time at the NSA means nothing.

Anyway, back to tomahawks in Syria.

Edited April 7, 2017 by No2bonus

[RTB]

2 minutes ago, No2bonus said:

If you were aware of that then you should have not referenced a NY times article. The last time I checked, the NY times isn't factual intelligence. If you want to suck your thumb and call people jackasses over WMD then you can debate yourself. You flew over the area and read an article so you're the expert.

Huh?  Suck my thumb?  Don't post an article?  Never contradict anything you post?  OK Hot Shot!

Never claimed to be an expert.  And it's pretty presumptuous of you to say something like "I don't think you realize" when you have no fucking idea what I do or don't have background in.  NYT was one of several open sources I could have cited that simply showed that WMD were found in unexpected places, although NOT part of the claimed ongoing weapons program that actually didn't exist.  As I stated in my first post, "I'll probably take some grief for this..." because to state there were "no WMDs" is technically false.  There were.  Just not the ones we thought would be there. 

 

 

[Guest]

. I guess my time at the NSA means nothing.

First smart thing you've said on this board.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

16 hours ago, No2bonus said:

I think the Syrian men fleeing the country and demanding refugee status from EU countries should "go all in." Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya has taught us all valuable lessons. Don't get sucked into this quagmire because in the end, the U.S. will get blamed no matter what happens.

Can't argue with the likelihood that we would take blame for things going wrong before, during and after the fact that no military could legitimately be held responsible for and that physically and mentally capable military age males running to Europe for asylum does not help the cause of major sustained intervention as LBJ said...

but... in life there very few absolutes and every instance is different, probably similar to past events but still different.

It is right to be wary given the history and result of the OIF and OEF missions but I see 3 reasons for intervention:

-  that allowing the Syrian Civil War to continue provides an opportunity for hegemony for Iran and Russia in an area of vital national interest, the stability of oil exports and increased threat to Israel will in the future only increase the probability and cost of a required US led intervention, nip it in the bud.  A riff on the Domino Theory but analogous to challenging Axis powers in the 30s versus waiting and having a devastating war in the 40s.  Not every aggression will lead to WW 3 I know but in this case, allowing a Persian Crescent to form with the Russians assisting is not in our interests.

- continuous war is setting up the nation of Syria or what will become new nations possibly for long term failure by the loss of youth, educated populations and a physically/psychologically/culturally damaged populace.  on the doorstep to Europe a West Afghanistan could be forming.  not in our interest, Europe's or the ME's to allow.

and

- the west or IC needs a win in order to keep the team together.  this may seem shallow but allowing our military, economic and security alliances and organizations to wither and then further question the basic value of a world where democracies for the most part stick together, promote basic decency and for the most part don't let the authoritarian regimes run riot over their neighbors has a value we take for granted.  this is a theatre where if the team comes together, a whole government(s) and organizations (govs, intl, and ngos) effort first led by a military mission then followed by a humanitarian mission then followed by a diplomatic mission then finally followed by a long term economic mission can work. 

from a military perspective a Syrian theater has several advantages over what is probably dissuading us, the false analogy that is the recent experience in Iraq / Afghanistan:

- the area to be secured (primarily) is smaller.  Syria is 1/3 the size of Afghanistan and 1/2 the size of Iraq.  we can concentrate forces, patrol and monitor more frequently and react faster.

- there is an existing infrastructure (for now) we can use.  civilian roads, airports, seaports, military bases, etc. with direct and secure road access from two potential allies, Turkey and Jordan.

- the potential AOR is much closer to existing logistical support bases / major commercial ports.  compared to Afghanistan, resupply will be easier.

- we have an enormous amount of equipment designed for this operation (occupation and likely some level of COIN / LIC following the initial deployment.  MRAPs, RPAs and the large amount of recent operational experience will likely mean this operation would be run better.  optimistic but I don't think naïve.

just my ranting and opinion worth what you paid for it but I think we could pull this off if we decide it is in our collective interest, will allocate the resources and then some if required, act decisively and call the bluff of malevolent actors in the situation and if we chose to act, be patient and not expect this to last less than 10 years. 

Edited April 7, 2017 by Clark Griswold

[Guest No2bonus]

1 hour ago, ihtfp06 said:

 

First smart thing you've said on this board.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

In order to be a smartass, you must first be smart. Otherwise...

 

 

Edited April 7, 2017 by No2bonus

[Guest No2bonus]

This guy from Syria set CNN on fire...talking about burned. CNN tried to push their BS narrative about refugees. Look at the CNN anchors face. I don't want to be a refugee, we want to stay in Syria. You guys and Obama didn't do anything the last time we were attacked by chemical weapons (paraphrase).

Edited April 8, 2017 by No2bonus

[Blue]

3 hours ago, No2bonus said:

If you were aware of that then you should have not referenced a NY times article. The last time I checked, the NY times isn't factual intelligence. If you want to suck your thumb and call people jackasses over WMD then you can debate yourself. You flew over the area, stayed at a Holiday Inn Express in Balad, and read a NY Times article so you're the expert. I guess my time at the NSA means nothing.

Anyway, back to tomahawks in Syria.

WTF are you babbling about?

[Guest]

19 hours ago, Mark1 said:

words

 

I hope active duty members are willing to sacrifice their lives for a Trump dick measuring contest, because 4-8yrs is plenty of time for foreign actors to affront his precious ego.

More words

This many times

[Clark Griswold]

Russian RPA post-strike footage of the Al Shayrat airfield:

 

[Mark1]

10 hours ago, tk1313 said:

Why didn't he assess the situation and "eat his pride" prior to establishing the red line is my only point. And my first post should've said "Mad Dawg" instead of Trump because I have every reason to believe Trump pretty much asked Mattis what his response should be (as he should).

But sorry, no... Obama doesn't get any partial credit from me for "taking a step back" from the situation after a foreign government gasses its own citizens. And if we're talking about the rise of ISIS being a major reason why Obama couldn't be stronger in his stance, I'm just going to blame him for that one as well because he went against our military leaders' advice and pulled out of Iraq for the sake of his 'legacy' (fvcking tired of hearing about his legacy as well).

Saddam was an evil piece of sh!t who tortured his dissidents into submission. If you're fine with accepting the necessary evil of dictators being in charge and violating human rights for the sake of "peace in the Middle East" that's your opinion. We're by far the greatest nation on Earth, so personally I think we can do better than that.

Edit to Add: The reason I'm so forcefully behind the missile attack and somewhat giving credit to Trump is because I believe Trump has enough sense to rely on Mattis's good judgment. A vast majority of our previous presidents (Republican and Democrat) have ridden on the backs of military leadership for so long that they thought themselves capable of assessing military situations on their own, contrary to military opinion... And it pretty much destroyed a lot of good hard military work and progress. Examples: Obama in Iraq/Syria and George H.W. with not ending Saddam's bullsh!t when he had the chance.

When he made the red line speech he may very well have meant it and been more than ready to destroy Assad if the line was crossed.  A year later when it was, the situation was different.  Yes, he should have never made an absolute statement if changes on the ground in Syria could cause him to go back on it, but once that mistake is made his willingness to eat his pride and move forward logically, at personal expense, is correct.  And given current personalities in play it would be refreshing to know a person capable of that was at the helm.

Leaving Assad in power in 2013 is not an acceptance of brutal dictators if they're able to keep the "peace" through violence.  It's a calculus that a horrible, yet generally sane and rational dictator who occasionally gases his own people when he feels it necessary for his own survival is unfortunately better than a group of zealots that is literally attempting to burn all of civilization to the ground in order to usher in Armageddon and the end times.  Yes it's a shitty decision to have to make, but in 2013 it was temporarily the best option available.  Has that changed?  Maybe.  I don't have a fundamental problem with striking an airfield to slap the wrist of Assad over chemical weapons.  What worries me is where it goes from here with a child in the White House if we don't get the response out of him that we want.  With ISIS and the Russians in play the stakes are higher than just Syria's future.

It's slightly off topic, but I will also note that Obama did not decide to pull out of Iraq.  He executed the withdrawal plan established by his predecessor which the U.S. was legally bound to.  Why is it that anyone wishing to attack Obama has amnesia with regard to this?  Obama attempted to broker a revised SOFA in order to leave troops behind, but Malaki, a man which Bush installed against the recommendations of nearly everyone in his inner circle, refused to budge on provisions that remaining U.S. service-members be subject to Iraqi law and justice.  Obama deemed that unacceptable, as I assume everyone here agrees he should have, and proceeded with Bush's withdrawal plan.  If you want to make the argument that Obama could have made it happen if he had the will to do so, it's speculation, but fine.  However, Obama did not just come into office and turn the light switch off on operations in Iraq.  You'd better append Dubya's name in your examples above.

Relating to your other example, its real easy to look back at something that never happened and reminisce about how great it would have been.  The reality is that it probably would have been just as much a mess as we're dealing with now.  If Schwarzkopf doesn't tell the Iraqis that they can fly their gunships at the treaty signing then the Shia uprisings in the south gain traction.  At that point Iran throws their weight behind them in order to support their brethren and get rid of their arch enemy.  At the sight of this, the Sunnis take up arms and you instantly have a civil war with the U.S. in the middle trying to regulate it.  Sound familiar?  Maybe we should have ripped the Band-Aid off back then, but to talk about it as if it would have been a cakewalk is naive.  I would also venture to say that the population back home would have been much less tolerant of 5000 casualties after the expressed goal of liberating Kuwait was complete.  In 2003, no matter how misguided, the population still had memories of 9/11 and the GWOT to justify our presence there.  You didn't have that in 1991. 

Edited April 8, 2017 by Mark1

[tk1313]

6 minutes ago, Mark1 said:

words

Thing I disagree with strongly: It's a calculus that a horrible, yet generally sane and rational dictator who occasionally gases his own people when he feels it necessary for his own survival is unfortunately better than a group of zealots that is literally attempting to burn all of civilization to the ground in order to usher in Armageddon and the end times.

more words (not trying to be a dick just cutting down on your wall of text to make room for mine)

Agree to disagree. I'm not OK with gas being used to keep your citizens in check. I also don't think it's a choice between "Either Assad uses chemical weapons on his people or ISIS/Al Qaeda comes in and rules his people"... Come on, you don't believe that do you? Not even Obama believed that at the time...

Nov. 1, 2012: Obama touts killing Osama as one of his great accomplishments, and mentions that Al Qaeda has been 'decimated'.

Dec. 3, 2012: In a speech at National Defense University, the president again warns Assad over chemical weapons. "If you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons, there where be consequences, and you will be held accountable," Obama says.

April 25, 2013: In a letter to Congress, the White House says that the intelligence community assesses “with varying degrees of confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specifically the chemical agent sarin.”

Jan. 27, 2014: “The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a J.V. team puts on Lakers uniforms, that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant,” Mr. Obama told David Remnick of The New Yorker.

So basically, 2013 is the year that we were more afraid of Al Qaeda and ISIS than a dictator using chemical weapons on his own people, but at the same time it was the year after Obama said Al Qaeda had been decimated and the year before Obama called ISIS the JV team? Yeah... my bullsh!t meter is going crazy

Nov. 4, 2012: “You know I say what I mean and I mean what I say,” Obama said in Hollywood, Florida on Nov. 4, 2012.  “I said I'd end the war in Iraq. I ended it.”

So... Obama used his big Harvard Law brains everybody keeps talking about to pretty much go around the checks and balances when he felt it was necessary, but somehow big bad George 'Dubya' made it impossible for him to NOT withdraw from Iraq... Oh but I'm sure the credit was all Dubya's if the withdrawal was a huge success instead of causing ISIS to rise up like it had. Once again, I call bullsh!t.

TL;DR: No, I don't think using gas is an appropriate measure to make sure the country doesn't fall into the wrong hands. No, I don't think Obama made a good choice in a bad situation. I'm OK with you believing that of course (it's what makes this country the best), but my opinion is that Obama is a cocky a$$hole who's idea of foreign policy is basically to blame Bush or deny that it happened if his plan doesn't work, or take credit and write some cool line about how awesome he is so that the media crams the story down our throats for weeks. I'll take a puppet Trump with Mattis pulling the strings over Obama's "foreign policy" (if that's even what you can call it) any day.

[Mark1]

2 hours ago, tk1313 said:

Jan. 27, 2014: “The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a J.V. team puts on Lakers uniforms, that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant,” Mr. Obama told David Remnick of The New Yorker.

So basically, 2013 is the year that we were more afraid of Al Qaeda and ISIS than a dictator using chemical weapons on his own people, but at the same time it was the year after Obama said Al Qaeda had been decimated and the year before Obama called ISIS the JV team? Yeah... my bullsh!t meter is going crazy

Nov. 4, 2012: “You know I say what I mean and I mean what I say,” Obama said in Hollywood, Florida on Nov. 4, 2012.  “I said I'd end the war in Iraq. I ended it.”

Yes, Obama's a shitbag.  Just like 99% of all the other politicians we can't help but elect time and time again.  He takes credit where none is due when it's convenient for him and deflects responsibility where he can.

A month ago I heard Trump talking about how "tremendous" his new economy was, as if he turned a sinking ship around in a month despite the fact that nothing of any significance has changed and everybody on this board knows that even if changes were programmed, nothing in government gets done in one month.  A few hundred point jump in the Dow Jones as a "thank god it's not Hillary" reaction is not an indicator of a healthy economy, which is about all you can attribute directly to Trump economy-wise thus far.  Essentially, Trump was inadvertently praising "Obama's Economy".  Nobody mentions the ridiculousness of it, because as disgusting as it is, it's the way politics works.  And for the record, Obama doesn't deserve credit for the "tremendous" economy either...it runs in cycles and a president has limited power over it.  Clinton got lucky to be in office for the .com boom so history generally sees him as good economically (this board is not a barometer of broad public opinion), but if he were instead around for the oil embargo there would have been no surpluses...it's mostly just luck.  Yet they all claim credit when they can.

Same as Obama taking credit for ending Iraq when he's in front of the right audience despite it not telling the whole story.  I'm not talking in terms of what Presidents say: we all know it's horseshit.  I'm talking about reality.  Obama did not yank us out of Iraq purely on his own accord despite what Rush Limbaugh might want people to believe given the current state of the region and the convenience of putting that on a political rival.  That's all I'm saying.

With respect to the J.V. comment: Plenty of you will probably not appreciate this, but I just offer it as food for thought.  It's partially speculation on my part but is supported by comments Obama made during his tenure.  There's this sentiment that him refusing to use "radical Islamic terrorism" and other similar catchphrases was a sign that he was secretly a Muslim, or in bed with Islam, or just too politically correct to generalize about a religion.  I don't think it's that simple (and again, he said as much many times).

This is open to different interpretations, but many Muslims believe the Koran requires Muslims around the world (with some exceptions) to move to a Caliphate's territory, live within the state, and support it (to include fighting for it if necessary).  The Koran also describes the circumstances leading to Judgement Day to include the establishment of a final Caliphate, it's expansion to Istanbul, and then it's ultimate collapse after meeting the armies of Rome.  If you do enough mental gymnastics, you can make the case that IS is the final Caliphate, and the U.S. is a modern day "army of Rome" (read as a generic army of infidels from the western world).

The mandate to travel and support the Caliphate only applies if the Caliphate is true and legitimate.  An easy way for ISIS to establish it's legitimacy, at least among impressionable idiots looking for anything to believe in, is to propagandize the prophesy.  ISIS wants us to get involved because, again with the mental gymnastics, they can point at our involvement and say, "See, there's the army of Rome from the prophesy...it's coming true, we're legitimate, and it's your duty to come support us."  It won't convince many, but it takes a very small percentage of 1 billion to double your numbers.  The President of the United States using language that insinuates we're at war with Islam helps with their recruitment.  Everyone reading this will think, "bullshit", but we're not talking about convincing you.  We're talking about convincing illiterate idiots with dead end lives and nothing to lose.

Referring to ISIS as J.V. is an ill advised attempt to marginalize them because the more insignificant they seem and the less we care about what they're doing, the harder it is to leverage our opposition to them as a fulfillment of the prophesy.  That means fewer recruits.  It turned out to be a massive embarrassment for Obama, but I don't believe it truly reflected his impression of ISIS as nothing to be concerned about.  I was "in the know" at the time and could see us making moves behind the scenes that do not square with a belief that ISIS was nothing to be concerned about, despite that being his public message for a short time.  Of course you could say that whatever we were doing at the time was wholly insufficient and that would be true, but there was no political will or public support for the type of strategic operations that would have been necessary to slow ISIS's growth until the executions and Yazidi massacres made it to international television.

Whether you agree with the stance or not, Obama opting not to use certain language was calculated, and not simply a symptom of him being a pussy.  I would note that Trump's own national security advisor, Gen. McMaster, recommended he not use the verbiage.  Because Mcmaster operates in reality, where Trump does what he thinks will get him the most retweets from the cast of Deliverance.

Edited April 8, 2017 by Mark1

[herkbum]

[/url] This guy from Syria set CNN on fire...talking about burned. CNN tried to push their BS narrative about refugees. Look at the CNN anchors face. I don't want to be a refugee, we want to stay in Syria. You guys and Obama didn't do anything the last time we were attacked by chemical weapons (paraphrase).

I love it anytime CNN gets crushed


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[tk1313]

7 hours ago, Mark1 said:

words

Valid point on politicians being sh!tbags. I also agree with the previous presidents' decisions to not entirely embrace the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism" to deter recruiting efforts... I get why Bush did it, I get why Obama did it. I'm not a politician so I have the luxury of calling it as I see it. And ISIS has completely twisted the Quran to fit their agenda.

I don't have all the "behind the scenes" intelligence, so all I have to go on is that Obama himself said he wasn't worried about ISIS or Al Queda when he pretty much did nothing about the gas attacks in Syria.

Basically, our main disagreement is that while you assert that you're willing to turn a blind eye to occasional ethics violations to keep Syria from becoming another middle eastern sh!thole, I believe the leaders of middle eastern countries don't have to resort to banned warfare tactics to keep their country under control. At that point, it becomes a question of "who are the real monsters here?" or "which monsters should we support?" Nobody needs chemical weapons to defeat ISIS.

[Clark Griswold]

More BDA info on the strike and performance of the Tomahawks used:

https://warisboring.com/u-s-cruise-missiles-struck-syrian-base-with-impressive-precision/

TLDR version:  7 Syrian KIA, 18 Syrian WIA, airfield heavily damaged, 4 Syrian Su-22s destroyed and no Russian helos or personnel hit.  

On the policy executed by POTUS, good commentary on it from Bolton:

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/04/07/last-night-the-obama-era-in-american-foreign-policy-ended-says-john-bolton/

He mentions around the 6:30 mark in the video embedded in the article what I believe is inevitable and should be encouraged, the partition of Syria/Iraq.

FP article on the idea:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/09/its-time-to-seriously-consider-partitioning-syria/

I'm not for imposing on others without a lot of thought and caution but is this inevitable and really what the situation is now and likely to remain so without a major intervention?  I include West Iraq in the question as the Sunni population there would and is drawn to union or alliance with the Sunni population of Syria vice being ruled or in a nation dominated now by Shia.

[BFM this]

Good luck selling that to Iran and SA

[Clark Griswold]

Good luck selling that to Iran and SA

Use relief from sanctions and other carrots they want not related to Syria to change their opinions on the matter


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ned1]

The idea that this happened because al assad crossed some moral line is an absolute joke. Hundreds of thousands have already been slaughtered and millions more displaced. Trump refuses to help refugees at all but now he's concerned about the well being of the syrians? This is a power play intended to boost approval ratings and lift Russian sanctions. Mark my words that Russia will benefit from this action. The story that CNN and their ilk are peddling, that this is some reaction to a moral outrage, will be happily accepted by the unwashed masses. And the elites will continue making back room deals that benefit both Trump and Putin

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

[pintail21]

 

 

Is this ironic? I'm pretty sure this is ironic.

 

That one aged well.

Nothing like a good ole fashioned tax cut promise, followed by a promise to massively increase military spending in order to support a more isolationist national defense strategy. 

A letter to our very foolish leader...