War?

[Woody's Workshop]

My wife just came back holding her phone and said several of relatives are being deployed as Trump has declared war on Syria.
I know he went after the leader of some terrorist group about a week ago. But I've nothing about him declaring war.
I've been watching Turner Classic Movies all day and sanding on rockets.
Any inlightenment on this?

 

[dhbarr]

I've seen no declaration of war, just 50-60 missiles launched. My info. could be out of date, though.

 

[jderimig]

President's don't declare war, congress does.

 

[boatgeek]

2 US Navy ships launched 50+ cruise missiles overnight at the Syrian airbase that was home to the planes that launched the chemical weapons attack a few days ago. Declaring war is probably a strong term, although there were apparently Russian soldiers at that base. Some members of Congress are asking Trump to talk with them about policy goals and plans for Syria. IMHO, political agreement between Congress and the White House about what we actually want to do in Syria is long overdue. Nobody is excited about getting into another ground war in the Middle East, but it's hard to see what we can do effectively without going in on the ground. There's some more background on the airstrikes here: https://www.npr.org/2017/04/06/522948481/u-s-launches-airstrikes-against-syria-after-chemical-attack

Thread turning partisan/political and getting locked in 5, 4, ...

 

[Zeus-cat]

I wonder why we don't lob a few missiles directly at Assad and the little fat boy in North Korea. I know there is some prohibition on attacking a country's leader. Is that international law or American policy or what? Does anyone know? I know that there could be serious repercussions, especially if we missed the intended target, but...

And I really am not being political with the above questions. Why don't we do that?

 

[AfterBurners]

I wonder why we don't lob a few missiles directly at Assad and the little fat boy in North Korea. I know there is some prohibition on attacking a country's leader. Is that international law or American policy or what? Does anyone know? I know that there could be serious repercussions, especially if we missed the intended target, but...

And I really am not being political with the above questions. Why don't we do that?

If you want peace in the middle east you have to start with a clean slate. Nuke the place!

 

[T-Rex]

I can see both sides of the coin.
- Make the place a glass parking lot sounds good, but there are a whole lot of people over there who are just trying to make a living and feed there family just like you and I.
- I also wonder if we shouldn't just back out and let them kill each other off, but that goes back to the ones just trying to get through the day.
Given the technology, we can today make surgical strikes that reduce the collateral damage/death. I think 50 cruse missiles at the cost of a few million each might be a little excessive for one airbase, but we haven't really been told if that was the only target.

Doesn't surprise me that there may have been a knee jerk reaction to start making calls. If it was a knee jerk reaction, those reservists are gonna be pretty angry when they don't get paid.....

 

[TRFfan]

If you want peace in the middle east you have to start with a clean slate. Nuke the place!

And nuke all of the innocent people?

 

[Steven]

This was the very issue with Iraq. 5200 US troops and 100,000 civilians were killed. And for what? ISIS is now loose as Hussein is no longer there to keep them in check, for that matter, neither are his two sons. For twenty four years he kept them in tow, and Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld threw that all away on a knee jerk reactionary decision. No thought for long term consequences, just an immediate, TEMPORARY band aide. The US will NOT learn from the past and IS doomed to repeat it. I say let these people kill each other off as they've been doing for thousands of years. I wouldn't want a foreigner coming over here to decide the outcome of our lives. How can you ignore this aspect and justify doing it to others? The US needs to STOP policing the world and become isolationist as we were before WWII.
I don't want someone coming into MY backyard dictating how I live so I sure as hell don't want to do it to others. These people have lived with this ruthless kind of killing for centuries. A 'nuke' will only be a short term solution. Not to mention the fact that the rest of the world will see US as a rogue nation just to add to the list of other rogue nations. Not good. Let them kill each other and keep our noses clean. You can't win in the middle east people. For every 'Allie' you make over there, you'll make two enemies. The US has never dealt with such radicalized people as are found in the middle east. You'll simply become embroiled in a thousand year war along side of them, and that's where we have been heading.

 

[DavidMcCann]

On one hand, getting involved is stupid. on the other it pissed off russia. so kind of a toss up for me.

 

[jderimig]

On one hand, getting involved is stupid. on the other it pissed off russia. so kind of a toss up for me.

Plus happening with the dinner with the Chinese president puts it over the top for me. I am guessing the conversation went something like this:

POTUS: Excuse me President Xi, I need to step away for a half hour while I order the bombing of Syria. I promise I will be back with you before the appetizers arrive.

 

[DavidMcCann]

Plus happening with the dinner with the Chinese president puts it over the top for me. I am guessing the conversation went something like this:

POTUS: Excuse me President Xi, I need to step away for a half hour while I order the bombing of Syria. I promise I will be back with you before the appetizers arrive.

lol. I'd pay real money for a transcript of the phone call to Russia. "hey how's it going? Yea, crazy weather here, rain, snow...it's all crazy. Oh, hey if you know anyone at Shayrat you might wanna send them out for pizza or something. And then go pick them up cuz it won't be there when they get back. Hey, how you guys looking for the next olympics?"

 

[cwbullet]

Plus happening with the dinner with the Chinese president puts it over the top for me. I am guessing the conversation went something like this:

POTUS: Excuse me President Xi, I need to step away for a half hour while I order the bombing of Syria. I promise I will be back with you before the appetizers arrive.

The president did not discuss the strike prior to it happening. I support this action. We cannot turn a blind eye to chemical weapons use. Unlike many of you, I might have to deploy in support of this action.

 

[rharshberger]

The president did not discuss the strike prior to it happening. I support this action. We cannot turn a blind eye to chemical weapons use. Unlike many of you, I might have to deploy in support of this action.

While he didn't discuss the strike, if anyone was paying attention they knew something was going to happen, and with US (yes, you/me/we the U.S.) the methods would be fairly direct. I support the strike as well, chemical weapons are nasty. Like you now Chuck, I deployed more than once in support of my countries military actions and would willingly do so again.

 

[Steven]

And the thousand year war continues with new players being added.

 

[DavidMcCann]

And the thousand year war continues with new players being added.

Look...Russia is backing the other side of a civil war that we're jumping into. well really not jumping into war. more like a police action. What could go wrong?


(joking aside, and despite my not being in the military and therefore my opinion being of no value, I'm in support of what was done. Chem weapons are no joke. It demanded a reply.)

 

[Steven]

Look...Russia is backing the other side of a civil war that we're jumping into. well really not jumping into war. more like a police action. What could go wrong?


(joking aside, and despite my not being in the military and therefore my opinion being of no value, I'm in support of what was done. Chem weapons are no joke. It demanded a reply.)

It was clearly acceptable to kill kids in the Iraq invasion and simply shrug it off as a casualty of war thing wasn't it? Swords, bullets, bombs and heavy armor are okay but chemicals aren't? Do you understand the level of hypocrisy here? What good did the 'response' do in Iraq? You already know the answer to that. As far as Russia is concerned, now we're adding yet another war to our agenda. Just what we need.

 

[Incongruent]

It was clearly acceptable to kill kids in the Iraq invasion and simply shrug it off as a casualty of war thing wasn't it? Swords, bullets, bombs and heavy armor are okay but chemicals aren't? Do you understand the level of hypocrisy here? What good did the 'response' do in Iraq? You already know the answer to that. As far as Russia is concerned, now we're adding yet another war to our agenda. Just what we need.

I agree that the response to chemical weapons is excessive compared to that for conventional weapons.

No comment on the other stuff.

 

[DavidMcCann]

It was clearly acceptable to kill kids in the Iraq invasion and simply shrug it off as a casualty of war thing wasn't it? Swords, bullets, bombs and heavy armor are okay but chemicals aren't? Do you understand the level of hypocrisy here? What good did the 'response' do in Iraq? You already know the answer to that. As far as Russia is concerned, now we're adding yet another war to our agenda. Just what we need.

Tucking your head in the sand isn't going to make the bad things in the world go away. It lets them get stronger and then they come to your door and it's too late to deal with them.

As for killing children in iraq, I've seen no evidence of that being acceptable, and you making that claim leads me to believe you have a heavy anti-war bias and are not arguing from a position of fact and logic, but simply idealistic pacifist BS rhetoric.

If you understand how chemical weapons work (and they were used on children here...we must defend the children, how can we just let children be killed?) But chem weapons kill BRUTALLY. choke, suffocate, melt skin, cause horrible terrible death. If I've got the choice, sign me up for a bullet, thanks.

 

[Steven]

They've been killing each other for thousands of years. What makes any nation think they can actually change that? The Iraq war proved that.

 

[DavidMcCann]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/world/middleeast/chemical-attack-syria.html?_r=0

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin

a fun snippet- Like all other nerve agents, sarin attacks the nervous system by interfering with the degradation of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine at neuromuscular junctions. Death will usually occur as a result of asphyxia due to the inability to control the muscles involved in breathing function.

That sounds totally fun. No idea why everyone is all mad about it.

 

[DavidMcCann]

They've been killing each other for thousands of years. What makes any nation think they can actually change that? The Iraq war proved that.

If we walk away, and just let them kill each other.... you think they'll just leave us alone? What color is the sky in your world? Do they have ice cream there?

 

[Mushtang]

I thought it was a refreshing change that when the reporters asked Trump if and when he would attack Syria he said something like, "I'm not going to tell you anything about my plans". He knew that in the recent past a President announcing specifics of his plans resulted in the enemy being more than ready when the attack finally came as announced.

Go Trump! He seems to understand the value in keeping your cards close to your vest.

 

[Steven]

This doesn't answer the question as to the belief that the western world caters to by thinking it can change old habits by radicals. You CAN'T. This WILL go on with us or without us. Killing is killing and we HAVE accepted this for the better part of two hundred years as a nation concerning the middle east. I just shown that Iraq is an outstanding example of this having accomplished nothing but a destabilized region that allowed radicals like ISIS to rise. Yes, you have made it acceptable to kill tens of thousands of civilians and what do you do? "Let's do it again." And that was done WITH 'smart' bombs and 'pinpoint' accuracy. When a country like Japan took the first swipe then absolutely war is just. This is pure, perpetual, never ending lunacy. You insist on ignoring the failure of Iraq just to play more cowboys and Indians with these radical animals. No nation on earth has been able to reverse this let alone put a dent in the middle east's goings on.
This is permanent so get used to it.

 

[Steven]

If we walk away, and just let them kill each other.... you think they'll just leave us alone? What color is the sky in your world? Do they have ice cream there?

You DO understand why they won't leave us alone do you? That's right, going over there and dictating how THEY should live. Get it?

 

[DavidMcCann]

You DO understand why they won't leave us alone do you? That's right, going over there and dictating how THEY should live. Get it?

Oh yea, Crusades, english occupation, trying to draw borders and setup countries in an area that's tribal and war-like. Russia trying to take over, us trying to take over. Saudi's funneling cash all over the place, the flow and control of oil, black market oil, that whole Isreal thing. Hundreds of thousands of years of crap, I get why. but the point is, we could pull every boot and ship out of the area and they'd still come try and kill us.

So, I say anytime any one of them stands up and looks at us funny or does something they shouldn't.... drop 'em. Right, wrong, I don't care.

 

[DavidMcCann]

It's time to take this one off the rails.

 

[Steven]

It won't change a thing regardless. Bottom line.

 

[DavidMcCann]

 

[Steven]

Precisely, going nowhere fast.