New strike on Syria without congressional approval.

[ADigitalArtist]

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.

Please show me the difference.

 

[idav]

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.

I am so happy the current president encrypts all his messages via public Twitter posts and doesnt blast everything including military plans all over social media.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

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?

"Needed urgent response" please show, with evidence, the response was:
A. Needed
B. Needed to be urgent

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

Buildings have a tendency to be empty after bombing.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Buildings have a tendency to be empty after bombing.

Sucks for retrieval crews then. Guess we should tell them everything in a building magically vanishes after the building collapses. Why did we bother cordoning off areas with chemicals agents post attacks before though? Were experts worried about dispersal for no reason?

Or it could be that, like was stated by Syrian Regime, the sites were abandoned a few days ago. Which even the Pentagon admitted could be the case.

 

[columbus]

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

In the big picture, No.

Why are we even fighting Assad?
If you want to save Syrian lives, get us out of the war biz.
Tom

 

[Twilight Hue]

Sucks for retrieval crews then. Guess we should tell them everything in a building magically vanishes after the building collapses. Why did we bother cordoning off areas with chemicals agents post attacks before though? Were experts worried about dispersal for no reason?

Or it could be that, like was stated by a Syrian Regime, the sites were abandoned a few days ago. Which even the Pentagon admitted could be the case.

Typically I would think strategic facilities would never have all their eggs in one basket. That doesn't mean the bombings wouldn't have been successful if you perchance had hit a critical component crippling overall production in some way.

You don't have to always destroy the entire chain, just some key links in order to break it to put it offline for a while.

I think the bombings were more a corporal message of what's to come than anything else if the banned chemicals continue being used and employed to kill more people in the future clearly in violation of the Geneva Convention.

Syria was effectively given its bloody nose and a stern message to back down from using banned chemical weapondry.

That's how it appears to me.

 

[Faithofchristian]

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.

Well if Obama had stood his grounds, people wouldn't haved died.
The only thing that people like Assad of Syria and Russia understands is power.

Democrate President JFK went up against Russia back in 1962, what was called the Bay of pigs at Cuba, and showed Russia that the United States will not back down.
Causing Russia to back off. And you know what, President JFK didn't Waite for any Congressional approval. To take the Navy and put a blockade preventing Russia ships from entering Cuba. The U.S. Navy was given orders by Democrate President JFK that if the Russian ships moved forward, to blast them out of the water. Which the Russian ships back off and left, knowing Democrate President JFK ment business. Just like President Trump means business also.

This is the Kind of President leadership that is always needed. To show the world that the United States is no push over or walk on.

Hopefully Assad of Syria got the message, that he if goes to take more people's lives again, the consequences will be more severe.

So all anyone can do is Waite and see if Assad got the message.

 

[Twilight Hue]

In the big picture, No.

Why are we even fighting Assad?
If you want to save Syrian lives, get us out of the war biz.
Tom

I don't think it's completely Assad although I view it a factor. I have a feeling from a tactical standpoint the US, UK, and France dosent want Russia making a permanent base and presence there.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Well if Obama had stood his grounds, people wouldn't haved died.
The only thing that people like Assad of Syria and Russia understands is power.

Democrate President JFK went up against Russia back in 1962, what was called the Bay of pigs at Cuba, and showed Russia that the United States will not back down.
Causing Russia to back off. And you know what, President JFK didn't Waite for any Congressional approval. To take the Navy and put a blockade preventing Russia ships from entering Cuba. The U.S. Navy was given orders by Democrate President JFK that if the Russian ships moved forward, to blast them out of the water. Which the Russian ships back off and left, knowing Democrate President JFK ment business. Just like President Trump means business also.

This is the Kind of President leadership that is always needed. To show the world that the United States is no push over or walk on.

Hopefully Assad of Syria got the message, that he if goes to take more people's lives, the consequences will be more severe.

So all anyone can do is Waite and see if Assad got the message.

So no evidence for your claim that any lives were saved. Understood.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I don't think it's completely Assad although I view it a factor. I have a feeling from a tactical standpoint the US, UK, and France dosent want Russia making a permanent base and presence there.

They absolutely do not. Denying Russian access to warm water ports has been a major factor in 5 out of 6 of the major European wars of the modern era. If that's the strategic goal here, 9k, that's a valid rationale, even if we don't agree with it. But if that IS the strategic goal here, does this missile attack contribute towards it?

In every single war in history, denying an enemy the use of ground requires direct ground based opposition. Aerial bombardment is not without it's benefits (especially politically, since you can claim to be "doing something" without many inconvenient flag draped coffins coming home) but it is ultimately only intended to support troops on the ground. But if you want to actually achieve meaningful military outcomes, that requires ground troops. They don't have to be your own, proxy wars are great, but it still requires ground troops you can control. Do we have any ground troops we can control in Syria? And if not, are you prepared to either send yours or secure someone else's?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Typically I would think strategic facilities would never have all their eggs in one basket. That doesn't mean the bombings wouldn't have been successful if you perchance had hit a critical component crippling overall production in some way.

You don't have to always destroy the entire chain, just some key links in order to break it to put it offline for a while.

I think the bombings were more a corporal message of what's to come than anything else if the banned chemicals continue being used and employed to kill more people in the future clearly in violation of the Geneva Convention.

Syria was effectively given its bloody nose and a stern message to back down from using banned chemical weapondry.

That's how it appears to me.

Captain Adulsalam Abdulrazek, the defector who turned over 50 warehouse sites from the chemical weapons manufacture of Assad, thinks this doesn't even make a dent. If this is a political gesture, seems to be as anemic as the one made after the Sarin attacks we bombed previously for.

I think this has much more to do with other background politics of the US and UK (May and the Tory issues) and Russia than anything to do with effectively countering Assad's chemical weapon manufacture.

 

[Twilight Hue]

They absolutely do not. Denying Russian access to warm water ports has been a major factor in 5 out of 6 of the major European wars. If that's the strategic goal here, 9k, that's a valid rationale, even if we don't agree with it. But if that IS the strategic goal here, does this missile attack contribute towards it?

I dunno. But it does send Russia a message as well that we're going to intervene in the same territory that they are presently in.

It's certainly not the first time we played games of Chicken and Fox with Russia nor I think it will be the last, but I do think we need to send a strong message. While I personally like the Obama Style diplomacy even as a Republican, I really don't think it works very well nor practical in International politics. You really do need no-nonsense presidents and leaders to set the foot down when necessary and actually follow up with it which I think we did in this case with our allies.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Captain Adulsalam Abdulrazek, the defector who turned over 50 warehouse sites from the chemical weapons manufacture of Assad, thinks this doesn't even make a dent. If this is a political gesture, seems to be as anemic as the one made after the Sarin attacks we bombed previously for.

I think this has much more to do with other background politics of the US and UK (May and the Tory issues) than anything to do with effectively countering Assad's chemical weapon manufacture.

I'm curious to know what the French are getting out of it?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I dunno. But it does send Russia a message as well that we're going to intervene in the same territory that they are presently in.

It's certainly not the first time we played games of Chicken and Fox with Russia nor I think it will be the last, but I do think we need to send a strong message. While I personally like the Obama Style diplomacy even as a Republican, I really don't think it works very well nor practical in International politics. You really do need no-nonsense presidents and leaders to set the foot down when necessary and actually follow up with it which I think we did in this case with our allies.

Fine rhetoric. I'm yet to see any evidence suggesting this strike meets any of the criteria you just set, though.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Fine rhetoric. I'm yet to see any evidence suggesting this strike meets any of the criteria you just set, though.

Of course. It's just speculation. Nobody's really going to know unless you have a security clearance and involved with it directly.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I dunno. But it does send Russia a message as well that we're going to intervene in the same territory that they are presently in.

It's certainly not the first time we played games of Chicken and Fox with Russia nor I think it will be the last, but I do think we need to send a strong message. While I personally like the Obama Style diplomacy even as a Republican, I really don't think it works very well nor practical in International politics. You really do need no-nonsense presidents and leaders to set the foot down when necessary and actually follow up with it which I think we did in this case with our allies.

Trump was the one telling Obama not to do it. That it's a futile gesture that will cost more than it gains, and distracts from domestic issues. I think he was right. I just wish he would have taken his own advice.

 

[Faithofchristian]

So no evidence for your claim that any lives were saved. Understood.

Common Sense would tell you, that since United States, France and Britain bomb Syria, saved lives.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I'm curious to know what the French are getting out of it?

I wish I knew. French politics are outside my usual circles.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Common Sense would tell you, that since United States, France and Britain bomb Syria, saved lives.

No evidence the buildings bombed contained chemical weapons agents or that any damage was done to Assad's chemical weapons stores.