New strike on Syria without congressional approval.

[Shadow Wolf]

That aspect was already addressed this time, it's longer in duration and of a larger scope then in past attacks.

Gaddafi, Saddam, Bin Laden, even larger scale attacks have not worked, but have only ever served to make things worse, such as being a catalyst that lead to the 9/11 attacks and the creation of ISIS.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Gaddafi, Saddam, Bin Laden, even larger scale attacks have not worked, but have only ever served to make things worse, such as being a catalyst that lead to the 9/11 attacks and the creation of ISIS.

I'm talking about the chemical attacks themselves.

 

[esmith]

Well there seems to be a little problem with some of you carping about President Trump not getting Congressional approval to attack Syria. Just wondering were the outrage was when your beloved Obama attacked Libya without Congressional approval? Oh that's right it was Obama.

Oh I betcha there are a few of you who do not read history, so
Obama Attacked for No Congressional Consent on Libya

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm talking about the chemical attacks themselves.

I know. But a significant chunk of Western history has been tied to numerous attempts and just as many failures in trying to control the Middle East, be it politically, geographically, economically, or socially. America itself chooses very poor allies in the region, and despite decades of military intervention we went from watching the dawn of a rebirth in an extremist pro-Islamic state, setting up future extremist leaders and supporting one of the worst states of Islamic extremism, and bumping off one dictator who at least held the pressurized socio-political tensions "corked in." From the Taliban to ISIS, there is sufficient reason why the Western nations must cease such military and political interventions. It's basically what drove Marxist-Leninism mid-20th century, but with that Che was one of the few who was all for nuclear war. With Muslim extremists, there are plenty of them who would who would strap on a small nuclear bomb and kill themselves.
Clearly military intervention is not going to work. And because certain groups and nations have become increasingly extremists that many have become violently regressive and restistant to any sort of progressive ideas. Sucks for the people being attacked by the chemical weapons, but do we really want to risk another ISIS-like group? Do we want to pave the way for the next Taliban?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I know. But a significant chunk of Western history has been tied to numerous attempts and just as many failures in trying to control the Middle East, be it politically, geographically, economically, or socially. America itself chooses very poor allies in the region, and despite decades of military intervention we went from watching the dawn of a rebirth in an extremist pro-Islamic state, setting up future extremist leaders and supporting one of the worst states of Islamic extremism, and bumping off one dictator who at least held the pressurized socio-political tensions "corked in." From the Taliban to ISIS, there is sufficient reason why the Western nations must cease such military and political interventions. It's basically what drove Marxist-Leninism mid-20th century, but with that Che was one of the few who was all for nuclear war. With Muslim extremists, there are plenty of them who would who would strap on a small nuclear bomb and kill themselves.
Clearly military intervention is not going to work. And because certain groups and nations have become increasingly extremists that many have become violently regressive and restistant to any sort of progressive ideas. Sucks for the people being attacked by the chemical weapons, but do we really want to risk another ISIS-like group? Do we want to pave the way for the next Taliban?

Well the Middle East has always been a powder keg as far as I can tell.

I will give you this, I do wish the US will go back to the time where we weren't as offensive minded when it comes to Interventional Warfare.

We originally came in when we were needed and summoned for help which made us a respected nation in the past where we would come in with our military and not claim land or resources for our own when the mission was done.

I think one of the reasons why we are so aggressive now is post World War II, where the mentality was to stop something before it got too powerful and eventually too hard to handle resulting in a major conflict.

Given that the wars now are relatively short term in respect to major operations, there seems to be more of an indefinite policing going on to keep things in check via short-term intervention and bombing missions.

I don't know if it's a good thing or a bad thing to go that route, but considering the implications of irresponsible and reckless countries being allowed to live in "peace" would conceivably continue stockpiling and building up strength to the point where it might prove more disastrous on the long run as larger-scale theaters of War will be required to rout any such country out should they act on their new found strength

Allowing a rogue country getting too powerful, you might have another "Hitler" rising up for which the world might not be able to get out of.

Bottom line is I have mixed feelings about the way warfare is conducted, but I side more toward keeping rogue countries militarily placated.

If you will forgive me using Godwin's law, I really don't want to see another country having the comparative power that Hitler had during the 40s and see in the world thrust into a major conflict like if it can be avoided with more frequent, but less intense Warfare.

 

[Shaul]

Gaddafi, Saddam, Bin Laden, even larger scale attacks have not worked, but have only ever served to make things worse, such as being a catalyst that lead to the 9/11 attacks and the creation of ISIS.

The strikes you cited were all for a non-specific goal, ergo they didn’t work. (Although I don’t necessarily agree with you on some of those) But other limited air strikes with a specific target certainly can be effective. For example the Israeli Operation Opera which targeted Iraq’s nuclear facility kept Saddam Hussein from acquiring nuclear weapons. These latest air strikes were targeted precisely at chemical weapons assets. As a means to achieve that specific goal they could be effective.

 

[Shaul]

The stated rationale for these strikes was to destroy Assad chemical weapon assets in response to his (yet again) using them against civilians and reduce his ability to do it again in the future. Time will tell if that goal was achieved.

I am wondering if some of the hue and cry against these air strikes is because some people recognize they may actually work and don’t like that prospect.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Gaddafi, Saddam, Bin Laden, even larger scale attacks have not worked, but have only ever served to make things worse, such as being a catalyst that lead to the 9/11 attacks and the creation of ISIS.

Shh! Don't point out the obvious! All in favour of pointless missile strikes say "aye", all opposed say "I hate America "

 

[Shaul]

Shh! Don't point out the obvious! All in favour of pointless missile strikes say "aye", all opposed say "I hate America "

So what do you think should be the response to Assad using chemical weapons against civilians then? Perhaps a sternly worded letter of outrage?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Well there seems to be a little problem with some of you carping about President Trump not getting Congressional approval to attack Syria. Just wondering were the outrage was when your beloved Obama attacked Libya without Congressional approval? Oh that's right it was Obama.

Oh I betcha there are a few of you who do not read history, so
Obama Attacked for No Congressional Consent on Libya

I mean did you just skip over everything in the thread except the first post?

 

[Faithofchristian]

What will we get from bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Trump needs congressional approval.

Link: Trump Orders Strikes on Syria Over Suspected Chemical Weapons Attack

The President does not need congressional approval, That's why a President is President to lead. The Constitution clearly states, in cases as such the President does not need congressional approval.

Besides, had Obama done his job and not kept drawing red lines in the dirt, and stood his ground, We wouldn't be in alot messes as we are.

As for declaring war on another country yes it does take congressional approval.

So how many people and children are to die, before getting a congressional approval.

Congress knew from day one what Syria was doing, but Congress kept quiet.
So now because President Donald Trump acted to save people and childrens lives.

Everyone is crying, Congressional approval, then why didn't Congress say anything during the whole week ?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

The President does not need congressional approval, That's why a President is President to lead.
As for declaring war on another country yes it does take congressional approval.

So how many people and children are to die, before getting a congressional approval.

Congress knew from day one what Syria was doing, but Congress kept quiet.
So now because President Donald Trump acted to save people and childrens lives.

Everyone is crying, Congressional approval, then why didn't Congress say anything during the whole week ?

New strike on Syria without congressional approval.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

So what do you think should be the response to Assad using chemical weapons against civilians then? Perhaps a sternly worded letter of outrage?

Talk about So's Law!

If you want to get involved in Syria, fine. But do it properly. Acknowledge the complexity of the situation, have a clear set of goals, including desired end point, and then have experts draw up evidence based strategy. If you have the will to do everything said strategy requires, great. Do it. But if you're NOT prepared to do that, don't think lobbing a couple of missiles at some arbitrary target in a country and region that's been a war blackened ruin for 20 odd years is going to achieve anything meaningful.

 

[Faithofchristian]

New strike on Syria without congressional approval.

Well if it was that so important, then why didn't Congress say anything during the whole week, if it was so important for congressional approval.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

So now because President Donald Trump acted to save people and childrens lives.

Please show evidence that Trump's actions have saved anyone, please?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Well if it was that so important, then why didn't Congress say anything during the whole week, if it was so important for congressional approval.

Click the link, read the words.

 

[Faithofchristian]

So what do you think should be the response to Assad using chemical weapons against civilians then? Perhaps a sternly worded letter of outrage?

You can't be Serious, seeing last year Assad of Syria was bomb.

So what good would a letter do ?

So what you think, if a person came up to you hitting on you and you hit them back hard, Now here they come again, so you think a letter would work.
You can't be Serious.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

So what do you think should be the response to Assad using chemical weapons against civilians then? Perhaps a sternly worded letter of outrage?

Probably not post a threat about impending missions on Twitter before dropping bombs on what all evidence so far is showing to be empty buildings.

 

[Shaul]

Talk about So's Law!

If you want to get involved in Syria, fine. But do it properly. Acknowledge the complexity of the situation, have a clear set of goals, including desired end point, and then have experts draw up evidence based strategy. If you have the will to do everything said strategy requires, great. Do it. But if you're NOT prepared to do that, don't think lobbing a couple of missiles at some arbitrary target in a country and region that's been a war blackened ruin for 20 odd years is going to achieve anything meaningful.

That didn’t really answer my question. What response do you think should be made to Assad’s use of chemical weapons?

 

[Faithofchristian]

Please show evidence that Trump's actions have saved anyone, please?

If Trump had not step in, Assad of Syria would haved continued, seeing no one was in opposing him.

If Obama and John Kerry had not lied about Syria not having any chemical weapons, we wouldn't be in this mess with Syria.

Trump was in his Constitutional right, if not wouldnt you think Congress would be crying out about it and the pentagon.

Seeing how the Pentagon was in the support of Trump.

Congress had a whole week, But instead said nothing.
All because Congress knew Trump was in his Constitutional rights as President to do what he did.