It's on

[Musburger1]

Voted for Trump because of his statements about foreign policy and I got Hillary Clinton anyway.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...l-weapons-attack-n743636?cid=eml_nbn_20170406

 

[Brad Austin]

Did you watch the vids of those little kids in agony getting sprayed down with water? Pretty nasty stuff.

I doubt ANY 2016 candidate besides Bernie could see that, have his/her entire intel and military leadership say they're certain Assad was behind it, and not take action.

Even Russia made statements this morning putting some distance between Assad. Maybe they concluded what our side did after looking into it.

 

[Musburger1]

Did you watch the vids of those little kids in agony getting sprayed down with water? Pretty nasty stuff.

I doubt ANY 2016 candidate besides Bernie could see that, have his/her entire intel and military leadership say they're certain Assad was behind it, and not take action.

Even Russia made statements this morning putting some distance between Assad. Maybe they concluded what our side did after looking into it.

i probably should wait a few more days before commenting, but this all appears staged.

For the sake of argument let's say that Syria did use a chemical weapon and killed 75 innocent civilians. How many innocent civilians are going to be killed as a result of the escalation? If Assad is removed, what replaces him? How will the Iranians respond? Russia? What the hell is Congress or the Constitution good for? Has any strategy been communicated to the US citizens? Any debate?

 

[mchammer]

Did you watch the vids of those little kids in agony getting sprayed down with water? Pretty nasty stuff.

I doubt ANY 2016 candidate besides Bernie could see that, have his/her entire intel and military leadership say they're certain Assad was behind it, and not take action.

Even Russia made statements this morning putting some distance between Assad. Maybe they concluded what our side did after looking into it.

I have to admit that when the Russians stood down I started believing in the CW attack.

 

[Brad Austin]

How many innocent civilians are going to be killed as a result of the escalation? If Assad is removed, what replaces him? How will the Iranians respond? Russia? What the hell is Congress or the Constitution good for? Has any strategy been communicated to the US citizens? Any debate?

These are all good questions and there will be a lot of unsavory outcomes if/when Assad is removed. Then again, nothing about Syria isn't total chaos as it stands.

I'm just addressing this action which was a minimal, proportional response to make a statement. And I like the statement it sends for multiple reasons. China, Russia, NK, Iran, not-my-president Americans...everyone learned a lesson today.

Btw, who's quaking in their boots over Iran's response? lol Obama hypnotized Americans into thinking Iran has some ability to threaten us. smh Israel would pose more of a threat to Russia if they decided to do them harm, and that would be a joke also.

Russia backed away after the chemical attack and before our strike, they won't come back hard at us over this action.

All I'm saying is the vid of the victims of this chemical attack would move anyone to want the culprit to suffer. We struck a specific target involved in that exact occurrence. Measured, proportional response. If it's truly Assad's doing, great job.

I also just heard we struck around the stockpile of chemical weapons as to not spread them. How is it not Assad's doing if the chemicals are stored on the airbase we struck?

 

[I35]

Ok first off he struck airfields and runways. Just that alone has us leaving the pussification that we had become the last 8 years. Second, it senT a message to the world to "Not F$^K with us." Third, I love the fact he did it while the Leader of China is visiting.

We had to send a message to help protect the women and children of Syria. That can't be tolerated. We are now leader from the front again.

Like our President said earlier.......GOLD BLESS AMERICA AND THE ENTIRE WORLD!

EDIT: It's proven the airplane that dropped the gas on innocent civilians was tracked from the airbase that we bombed.

 

[Joe Fan]

.... If Assad is removed, what replaces him? ...

This is the one question that must be answered. To express it another way, what is the endgame? It is incumbent on you to have one.

From my perspective, I do not see anyone in the world who can hold that place together post-Assad. Forced to guess, I suppose some newer version of a hardened Islamist regime controlled from Tehran. And, if this is the case, the Sunnis will just keep fighting them (with no shortage of funding from the usual suspects). Quite possibly/probably the Kurds too.

Hillary did not have an endgame for Libya either and look what happened. I am not sure the proper way to describe what exists there now other than "failed state." And while that probably suffices as a descriptive term, it can hardly be called an acceptable endgame.

 

[Mr. Deez]

All I'm saying is the vid of the victims of this chemical attack would move anyone to want the culprit to suffer.

We had to send a message to help protect the women and children of Syria. That can't be tolerated. We are now leader from the front again.

We can find video of bad people doing all kinds of bad things to innocent people. It's not and has never been, by itself, a valid justification for war. If Trump is doing a 180 on Assad and preparing for war, he needs to justify it and explain, at least in general, what he's going to do. Furthermore, if this goes beyond a few airstrikes and Tomahawk missile attacks (which won't actually do anything meaningful), he needs Congress to authorize his action.

He also needs to show that he's not going to make the mistakes we made in Iraq and Libya. We can't fight a half-assed war and then turn the country over to "moderate Muslims" and hope for a stable, Western-style democracy. It's going to have to be an extensive and at times brutal military occupation that also involves Russian participation.

 

[Musburger1]

We can find video of bad people doing all kinds of bad things to innocent people. It's not and has never been, by itself, a valid justification for war. If Trump is doing a 180 on Assad and preparing for war, he needs to justify it and explain, at least in general, what he's going to do. Furthermore, if this goes beyond a few airstrikes and Tomahawk missile attacks (which won't actually do anything meaningful), he needs Congress to authorize his action.

He also needs to show that he's not going to make the mistakes we made in Iraq and Libya. We can't fight a half-assed war and then turn the country over to "moderate Muslims" and hope for a stable, Western-style democracy. It's going to have to be an extensive and at times brutal military occupation that also involves Russian participation.

All of this should happen. I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[I35]

We can find video of bad people doing all kinds of bad things to innocent people. It's not and has never been, by itself, a valid justification for war.

We didn't start a war. We just either stopped or made it much harder to gas the children and women of Syria. This move probably just prevented future aggressions against us. Showing strength has always been a better prevention of wars.

You are way off base on this one.

 

[Musburger1]

We didn't start a war. We just either stopped or made it much harder to gas the children and women of Syria. This move probably just prevented future aggressions against us. Show strength has always been a better prevention of wars.

You are way off base on this one.

We are going to see an escalation in the next month or so. You are so wrong. This was not a show of strength. This was naked aggression. Deduction implies this attack was planned well in advance. The troop build up, the positioning of the naval vessels, the signal that Syria would be allowed to choose their own leadership, and finally the gas attack which has not been investigated. By damaging the air base the only accomplishment is to weaken Syria's ability to fight Daesh and ISIS.

This morning Russia has stated they are sending a warship armed with cruise missiles. They will build up Syrian air defense, and they are discarding the agreement with the US that currently allows for cooperation of air space.

A third point, this attack was launched simultaneously with Xi's visit. Diplomacy by intimidation. China has the ability to take down the US financial system without firing a shot. Trump (or the Deep State pulling the strings) has recklessly escalated the situation.

 

[Mr. Deez]

We didn't start a war. We just either stopped or made it much harder to gas the children and women of Syria. This move probably just prevented future aggressions against us. Showing strength has always been a better prevention of wars.

You are way off base on this one.

I didn't say we started a war. If the missile attacks are all we do, it's not going to stop anything. It's going to instigate further US involvement in the area. If we have a plan to do that successfully, I can be convinced. However, pitching it purely as a moral crusade is garbage. Far worse atrocities took place in Darfur, Rwanda, and many other places, and I don't recall many conservatives calling for action.

And I don't recall you supporting Obama taking action in Syria the last time there was a chemical attack.

 

[I35]

We are going to see an escalation in the next month or so. You are so wrong. This was not a show of strength.

All the other countries like France, Germany, Turkey, and about 20 more have voiced their opinion that this was a good thing and needed to be done. So far only Russia and Iran has come out against this.. Even Lib Democratics have voiced their opinion that this had to be done. You and Deez are in a very small opinion disagreeing with this move.

After Assad gassing his own people the following has happened

2011 Hillary denounced Assad and said he must step down
2012 Obama put down a Red Line
2013 John Kerry said the same thing as Hillary
2015 Obama again repeated what Hillary and Kerry said

So the pussification of America's answer is leave Assad alone and bring all the Syria refugees over here blended with Muslim Terrorist. You act like Russia will show up and start firing missles at us which is insane considering all we did was hit airfields to prevent gas bombs going out from that location. So you and Deez are way off base on this. Things might get a little worse than they get better. Just like Grandparents spoiling the grandkids, the parents get them back and has to be the responsible one.

 

[I35]

I didn't say we started a war.

No you said "a justification of starting a war." Now you're playing with words.

As far as the rest of your post, see my response back to Musburger

 

[I35]

Far worse atrocities took place in Darfur, Rwanda, and many other places, and I don't recall many conservatives calling for action.

Clinton said Rwanda was his biggest regret of his presidency.

 

[Phil Elliott]

China has the ability to take down the US financial system without firing a shot.

By doing what, exactly? China needs our markets to stay healthy and keep buying or they are screwed.

 

[djimaplon]

It was all staged! False Flag! Calling Alex!

But seriously, good for Trump. Looks like the Bannon move (out) is paying dividends.

 

[OUBubba]

Hope it works out. Something had to be done. I got no quibbles with it.

 

[OUBubba]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/01/obama-strike-syria-congress-kerry
https://thinkprogress.org/will-cong...thinkprogress-whip-count-updated-1b79275ecf5b

Obama took this kind of action to Congress and was told "no" so he delayed any vote. Only 12 GOP congress members were going to support him. Sounds like some of his minor judicial appointments that they fought just "because".

 

[Musburger1]

For those who are interested in reading analytical opinions -probably less than10% of you since it's easier to just keep things black and white and cheer for the home team - I have two links that may be of interest. The first was written post attack and the second prior to the attack.

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/0...-air-support-request-scheme-for-al-qaeda.html

http://www.greanvillepost.com/2017/04/06/how-the-neocons-are-tempting-trump-on-syria/

Both of these opeds are written by people opposed to US policy. In the past, they've gotten some things correct and missed on other projections. When nobody knows all the facts, you have to mix objectivity with subjectivity.

 

[Mr. Deez]

No you said "a justification of starting a war." Now you're playing with words.

As far as the rest of your post, see my response back to Musburger

Damn, you can't even correctly quote me when my words are right in front of you. I actually said, "We can find video of bad people doing all kinds of bad things to innocent people. It's not and has never been, by itself, a valid justification for war."

At no point did I use the word "start" or even suggest it.

Clinton said Rwanda was his biggest regret of his presidency.

So were you on board with going into Rwanda? I don't remember you supporting action against Assad after the first chemical attack. Why is that?

 

[4th_floor]

And I don't recall you supporting Obama taking action in Syria the last time there was a chemical attack.

If he had grown a pair of balls and actually taken action, he would have had some support. Of course hyper-partisans would not support Obama regardless; kind of like the hyper-partisans not supporting Trump now.

 

[Mr. Deez]

If he had grown a pair of balls and actually taken action, he would have had some support.

BS. If he had taken the same action, most of the people hailing Trump's action would be pissed off at him for not getting the action approved by Congress or say it's inadequate. Of course, the real sin would be that he's from a different political party than they are.

Of course hyper-partisans would not support Obama regardless; kind of like the hyper-partisans not supporting Trump now.

I'm a Republican, and I've defended Trump on several occasions. When he's right, I say so. When he's wrong, I say so. I'm not a hyperpartisan.

 

[Musburger1]

Marine LaPen's thoughts on the strike. She sounds like Trump did before taking office.

Marine Le Pen said she was "surprised" by the reaction of Donald Trump, and distanced herself from the American President. "I'm a little surprised, because Trump had repeatedly said that he did not intend to make the United States the world policeman, and that's exactly what he did yesterday, she explained on France 2. "Is it too much to ask to wait for the results of an independent international investigation before making a strike like this?"
"What I would like is that we do not find the same scenario that we saw in Iraq, in Libya, which in reality are processes leading to chaos, and that ended up nurturing islamic fundamentalism. "
The president of the Front National let it be understood that we have to keep talking with Syrian President Bashar A-Assad "as there is no one else credible"
Thursday she judged that Donald Trump was wrong to envisage strikes in Syria. "If the responsibility must be the ensemble of the nations, then it comes to the organization of elections under the correct democratic conditions," she said.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Marine LaPen's thoughts on the strike. She sounds like Trump did before taking office.

Marine Le Pen said she was "surprised" by the reaction of Donald Trump, and distanced herself from the American President. "I'm a little surprised, because Trump had repeatedly said that he did not intend to make the United States the world policeman, and that's exactly what he did yesterday, she explained on France 2. "Is it too much to ask to wait for the results of an independent international investigation before making a strike like this?"
"What I would like is that we do not find the same scenario that we saw in Iraq, in Libya, which in reality are processes leading to chaos, and that ended up nurturing islamic fundamentalism. "
The president of the Front National let it be understood that we have to keep talking with Syrian President Bashar A-Assad "as there is no one else credible"
Thursday she judged that Donald Trump was wrong to envisage strikes in Syria. "If the responsibility must be the ensemble of the nations, then it comes to the organization of elections under the correct democratic conditions," she said.

Le Pen has $millions$ of reasons to back Russia on this issue.

 

[Brad Austin]

Directly proportional response to a documented war crime with many precautions taken to avoid collateral damage, blowback, and not instigate retaliation.

It was long overdue and sent multiple messages at home and abroad that the days of American submission and letting political optics dictate military strategy are over.

The explanation is simple and just...in addition to chemical attacks grossly violating international law, we have troops on the ground in Syria and future usage of such weapons places them in grave danger.

Peace through strength after years of bowing down is only possible when a leader proves his strength. It was the perfect opportunity to set an example as no compassionate leader can argue the gas attack was atrocious and must be stopped. Mission accomplished.

 

[OUBubba]

I'm a moderate Democrat. I think you guys have me labeled as "hyper partisan". While I support Trump's actions here, I am also sniffing around it for Wag the Dog whiffs. There are some of the left that will point out that Russia and Assad could have created this "distraction" for Trump from the shitstorm that is DC right now. I'm not one of them. I am enjoying the hypocrisy of those on the right. Only 12 in all of Congress supported this kind of action four years ago. Trump has about 12 tweets from that era speaking out AGAINST any action in Syria. I mean, he's blaming Obama for something that he advocated against and the GOP blocked. Seems a little disingenuous.

The biggest thing that pissed me off about Clinton pre-2000 was that he let his wee willy get us into a world where any action that he took after 1996 was potentially a "distraction from his domestic issues". And, what built up in that period of time? Al-Q. I blame Clinton for 9/11 more than I blame W.

 

[4th_floor]

BS. If he had taken the same action, most of the people hailing Trump's action would be pissed off at him for not getting the action approved by Congress or say it's inadequate. Of course, the real sin would be that he's from a different political party than they are.

I guess they are all hyperpartisans according to you. You may be right. I would hope some would put defense of country before partisanship. But I'm just a Libertarian dreamer.

Problem is, Obama did nothing after drawing his line in the sand. That's on him, regardless of who supported or didn't support him.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I guess they are all hyperpartisans according to you. You may be right. I would hope some would put defense of country before partisanship. But I'm just a Libertarian dreamer.

Problem is, Obama did nothing after drawing his line in the sand. That's on him, regardless of who supported or didn't support him.

Nothing? He went to congress for approval who virtually slammed the door in his face. They then took the diplomatic route to remove some of the chemical stockpile, clearly failing in removing it all.

 

[OUBubba]

I guess they are all hyperpartisans according to you. You may be right. I would hope some would put defense of country before partisanship. But I'm just a Libertarian dreamer.

Problem is, Obama did nothing after drawing his line in the sand. That's on him, regardless of who supported or didn't support him.

From 2013:

Dear Mr. President,



We strongly urge you to consult and receive authorization from Congress before ordering the use of U.S. military force in Syria. Your responsibility to do so is prescribed in the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

While the Founders wisely gave the Office of the President the authority to act in emergencies, they foresaw the need to ensure public debate — and the active engagement of Congress — prior to committing U.S. military assets. Engaging our military in Syria when no direct threat to the United States exists and without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution.

Mr. President, in the case of military operations in Libya you stated that authorization from Congress was not required because our military was not engaged in “hostilities.” In addition, an April 1, 2011, memorandum to you from your Office of Legal Counsel concluded:

“…President Obama could rely on his constitutional power to safeguard the national interest by directing the anticipated military operations in Libya—which were limited in their nature, scope, and duration—without prior congressional authorization.”

We view the precedent this opinion sets, where “national interest” is enough to engage in hostilities without congressional authorization, as unconstitutional. If the use of 221 Tomahawk cruise missiles, 704 Joint Direct Attack Munitions, and 42 Predator Hellfire missiles expended in Libya does not constitute “hostilities,” what does?

If you deem that military action in Syria is necessary, Congress can reconvene at your request. We stand ready to come back into session, consider the facts before us, and share the burden of decisions made regarding U.S. involvement in the quickly escalating Syrian conflict.

Rep. Scott Rigell (VA-02) Republican Rep. Matt Salmon (AZ-05) Republican Rep. Mo Brooks (AL-05) Republican Rep. Scott Garrett (NJ-05) Republican Rep. Tom McClintock (CA-04) Republican Rep. Tom Marino (PA-10) Republican Rep. Dan Benishek (MI-01) Republican Rep. Tom Rooney (FL-17) Republican Rep. Steve Pearce (NM-02) Republican Rep. Tim Griffin (AR-2) Republican Rep. Justin Amash (MI-03) Republican Rep. Raul Labrador (ID-01) Republican Rep. Joseph Pitts (PA-16) Republican Rep. Trent Franks (AZ-08) Republican Rep. John Campbell (CA-45) Republican Rep. Paul Gosar (AZ-04) Republican Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (GA-03) Republican Rep. Joe Wilson (SC-02) Republican Rep. Charles Boustany (LA-03) Republican Rep. Tom Cole (OK-04) Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX-01) Republican Rep. Austin Scott (GA-08) Republican Rep. Bill Posey (FL-8) Republican Rep. Randy Forbes (VA-04) Republican Rep. Phil Gingrey (GA-11) Republican Rep. David Roe (TN-01) Republican Rep. Mark Sanford (SC-01) Republican Rep. John J. Duncan, Jr. (TN-02) Republican Rep. Reid Ribble (WI-08) Republican Rep. James Lankford (OK-05) Republican Rep. Bill Cassidy (LA-06) Republican Rep. Stephen Fincher (TN-08) Republican Rep. Trey Radel (FL-19) Republican Rep. Chris Stewart (UT-02) Republican Rep. Lynn Jenkins (KS-02) Republican Rep. Jeff Duncan (SC-03) Republican Rep. David McKinley (WV-01) Republican Rep. Gus Bilirakis (Fl-12) Republican Rep. Joseph Heck (NV-03) Republican Rep. Dennis Ross (FL-15) Republican Rep. Billy Long (MO-07) Republican Rep. Randy Hultgren (IL-14) Republican Rep. Steven Palazzo (MS-04) Republican Rep. Kevin Yoder (KS-03) Republican Rep. Doug Collins(GA-09) Republican Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick (PA-08) Republican Rep. Beto O’Rourke (TX-16) Democrat Rep. Zoe Lofgren (CA-19) Democrat Rep. Peter DeFazio (OR-04) Democrat Rep. Kurt Schrader (OR-5) Democrat Rep. Rush Holt (NJ-12) Democrat Rep. William Enyart (IL-12) Democrat Rep. Timothy Walz (MN-01) Democrat Rep. Christopher Gibson (NY-19) Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy (SC-04) Republican Rep. Frank Wolf (VA-10) Republican Rep. Michael Capuano (MA-07) Democrat Rep. Michael Simpson (ID-02) Republican Rep. Michael McCaul (TX-10) Republican Rep. Thomas E. Petri (WI-06) Republican Rep. Robert Pittenger (NC-09) Republican Rep. Walter Jones (NC-03) Republican Rep. Tom Latham (IA-04) Republican Rep. Richard Nolan (MN-08) Democrat Rep. Jim McDermott (WA-07) Democrat Rep. Kerry Bentivolio (MI-11) Republican Rep. Mike Coffman (CO-06) Republican Rep. Sean Duffy (WI-07) Republican Rep. Bruce Braley (IA-01) Democrat Rep. Morgan Griffith (VA-09) Republican Rep. Brad Wenstrup (OH-02) Republican Rep. Mark Amodei (NV-02) Republican Rep. Roger Williams (TX-25) Republican Rep. Doug LaMalfa (CA-01) Republican Rep. Brett Guthrie (KY-02) Republican Rep. Sam Farr (CA-20) Democrat Rep. Steve Daines (MT) Republican Rep. Robert Hurt (VA-05) Republican Rep. Steve Southerland, II (FL-2) Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann (MN-06) Republican Rep. Ralph Hall (TX-04) Republican Rep. Randy Neugebauer (TX-19) Republican Rep. Robert Wittman (VA-01) Republican Rep. Anna Eshoo (CA-18) Democrat Rep. David Schweikert (AZ-06) Republican Rep. Todd Rokita (IN-4) Republican Rep. David Loebsack (IA-02) Democrat Rep. Scott Tipton (CO-03) Republican Rep. Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02) Republican Rep. Earl Blumenauer (OR-03) Democrat Rep. Sam Johnson (TX-03) Republican Rep. Tom Price (GA-06) Republican Rep. Mark Meadows (NC-11) Republican Rep. Paul Broun (GA-10) Republican Rep. Markwayne Mullin (OK-02) Republican Rep. Steve Stockman (TX-36) Republican Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (WI-05) Republican Rep. Chris Collins (NY-27) Republican Rep. Diane Black (TN-06) Republican Rep. Daniel Webster (FL-10) Republican Rep. Peter Welch (VT) Democrat Rep. Lou Barletta (PA-11) Republican Rep. Tim Murphy (PA-18) Republican Rep. Gregg Harper (MS-03) Republican Rep. Jim Jordan (OH-04) Republican Rep. Ted S. Yoho (FL-03) Republican Rep. Bill Flores (TX-17) Republican Rep. Michael Burgess (TX-26) Republican Rep. Jim Matheson (UT-04) Democrat Rep. Cory Gardner (CO-04) Republican Rep. Alan Nunnelee (MS-01) Republican Rep. Jason Smith (MO-08) Republican Rep. Charles Fleischmann (TN-03) Republican Rep. Tim Walberg (MI-07) Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn (TN-07) Republican Rep. Collin Peterson (MN-7) Democrat

- See more at: http://www.rollcall.com/news/policy/87-house-members-sign-syria-letter-to-obama#sthash.TwiV6puI.dpuf