New strike on Syria without congressional approval.

[Shaul]

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.

Then what would you do?

 

[Shaul]

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.

Um, no, I wasn’t be serious. I was being facetious.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

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

No, I answered your question just fine. Read what I said again.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

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.

So no evidence. Gotcha.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Then what would you do?

Not pretend to care about the plight of Syrian people while only allowing in 11 refugees, to start. Not pretending this is an effective military plan (which I almost feel like putting in quotation marks because no actual plan has been given) when it has consistently been shown to not have long term impact or address the real core issues, which is why neither Trump nor Obama would have had congressional approval.

And yes, I was also against Obama's Syrian strikes. So was Trump. Actually my current stance is pretty similar to 2014 Trump. We should stay out of Syria as our activities are gaining little and costing much.

 

[Faithofchristian]

So no evidence. Gotcha.

Plenty of evidence, if it was all so important for Congress to give congressional approval, then why didn't Congress say anything during the whole week and still isn't saying anything.

All because Trump was within his Constitutional right as President

 

[Subduction Zone]

Plenty of evidence, if it was all so important for Congress to give congressional approval, then why didn't Congress say anything during the whole week and still isn't saying anything.

All because Trump was within his Constitutional right as President

If there is actual evidence why don't you post it? What you just posted was nonsense. Here is a clue, you need links for evidence. I will agree that Trump was within his rights for this strike. I do not think that anyone has denied that. The question is was it the right or even moral thing to do? So far it looks like the strike was largely ineffective.

 

[Shaul]

Not pretend to care about the plight of Syrian people while only allowing in 11 refugees, to start. Not pretending this is an effective military plan (which I almost feel like putting in quotation marks because no actual plan has been given) when it has consistently been shown to not have long term impact or address the real core issues, which is why neither Trump nor Obama would have had congressional approval.

And yes, I was also against Obama's Syrian strikes. So was Trump. Actually my current stance is pretty similar to 2014 Trump. We should stay out of Syria as our activities are gaining little and costing much.

So you think there should be no military response to Assad’s use of chemical weapons against civilians is what I understand you to write.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

So you think there should be no military response to Assad’s use of chemical weapons against civilians is what I understand you to write.

Either no military response, or military response after proper evaluation by Congress, with a comprehensive plan that addresses core issues within the political environment of Syria.
Not as a cheap call to emotion "what about the children."

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Plenty of evidence, if it was all so important for Congress to give congressional approval, then why didn't Congress say anything during the whole week and still isn't saying anything.

All because Trump was within his Constitutional right as President

I didn't ask whether Trump was within his "constitutional right", and I didn't mention Congress. I asked for evidence for your claim that Trump's actions saved anyone's life.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

So you think there should be no military response to Assad’s use of chemical weapons against civilians is what I understand you to write.

Not if it doesn't actually achieve anything constructive, no.

 

[Shaul]

Either no military response, or military response after proper evaluation by Congress, with a comprehensive plan that addresses core issues within the political environment of Syria.
Not as a cheap call to emotion "what about the children."

Some have suggested that Trump telegraphed his intent to Assad and that was wrong. Wouldn’t a lengthy discussion in Congress, along with its delays, and magnification of the widely divided opinions, make such a response ineffective? How would the vetting of 535 opinions allow for the needed urgent response?

 

[Shaul]

Not if it doesn't actually achieve anything constructive, no.

So if the air strikes could surgically destroy a significant portion of Assad’s chemical weapon capabilities, would that not achieve something?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So if the air strikes could surgically destroy a significant portion of Assad’s chemical weapon capabilities, would that not achieve something?

In my opinion, yes. But that is a big "if". From what I have heard they barely put a dent into that capability.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

So if the air strikes could surgically destroy a significant portion of Assad’s chemical weapon capabilities, would that not achieve something?

"if". Did they? Show me the ABR? And how "surgical" are we talking?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Some have suggested that Trump telegraphed his intent to Assad and that was wrong. Wouldn’t a lengthy discussion in Congress, along with its delays, and magnification of the widely divided opinions, make such a response ineffective? How would the vetting of 535 opinions allow for the needed urgent response?

That none of our 'urgent responses' have been very effective seems to indicate that the sudden strikes vs planned military strike isn't the way to go.

I think it's funny that Trump lashed out at Obama for both sudden strikes/not getting congressional approval and when he did go for congressional approval(and was rejected) for your reason. So maybe you can get more information on the apparent contradiction from him.

 

[fantome profane]

The Constitution clearly states, in cases as such the President does not need congressional approval.

Can you give a reference for that?

 

[Shaul]

No, I answered your question just fine. Read what I said again.

Sorry but you truly didn’t answer it “just fine”. Here is what you wrote,

“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.”

In your response you only discuss what some other “you” might do. As in “if you ...” Yet you never, in point of fact, state precisely what you yourself propose to do. If you think the part of your reply where you say to “do it properly” or “acknowledge the complexity of the situation [etcetera]” is an answer, you are wrong. That is a non-answer answer. That lacks any practical specificity. You never make a clear assertion in the form “I would do ...”. So, no, you didn’t answer my question and no it wasn’t an issue of Amy not reading your post.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Sorry but you truly didn’t answer it “just fine”. Here is what you wrote,

In your response you only discuss what some other “you” might do. As in “if you ...” Yet you never, in point of fact, state precisely what you yourself propose to do. If you think the part of your reply where you say to “do it properly” or “acknowledge the complexity of the situation [etcetera]” is an answer, you are wrong. That is a non-answer answer. That lacks any practical specificity. You never make a clear assertion in the form “I would do ...”. So, no, you didn’t answer my question and no it wasn’t an issue of Amy not reading your post.

Change "if" to "I would" if it makes you happy.

 

[Shaul]

That none of our 'urgent responses' have been very effective seems to indicate that the sudden strikes vs planned military strike isn't the way to go.

I think it's funny that Trump lashed out at Obama for both sudden strikes/not getting congressional approval and when he did go for congressional approval(and was rejected) for your reason. So maybe you can get more information on the apparent contradiction from him.

So you can’t conceive that each case could and should be judged on its own merits and that Trump’s assessment could be different in each case.