April 8, 20179 yr As others said, no chemical weapons involved so no response needed by the US. Use of chemical weapons crosses a whole other line and we need to make strong statements that it truly is "the red line". Chemical weapons are banned. The US considers use of chemical weapons on par to using a nuclear weapon. If chemical weapons are used, we need to respond with force so no one ever uses them. Use of chemical weapons are just a hair short of nuclear warfare.
April 8, 20179 yr Author As others said, no chemical weapons involved so no response needed by the US. Use of chemical weapons crosses a whole other line and we need to make strong statements that it truly is "the red line". Chemical weapons are banned. The US considers use of chemical weapons on par to using a nuclear weapon. If chemical weapons are used, we need to respond with force so no one ever uses them. Use of chemical weapons are just a hair short of nuclear warfare. If this was simply a civil war, I would agree with you. But, it is not just a civil war. Syria is a Russian proxy state that most likely supplied Assad with Chemical WMD. Assad clearly needs a stronger message, and so do the Russians.
April 9, 20179 yr If this was simply a civil war, I would agree with you. But, it is not just a civil war. Syria is a Russian proxy state that most likely supplied Assad with Chemical WMD. Assad clearly needs a stronger message, and so do the Russians. And North Korea was a proxy state of China. And North Vietnam was a proxy state of Russia. There is hardly any Civil War these days that isn't being pushed by an outside force. Do we get into the middle of all of them?
April 9, 20179 yr Author And North Korea was a proxy state of China. And North Vietnam was a proxy state of Russia. There is hardly any Civil War these days that isn't being pushed by an outside force. Do we get into the middle of all of them? Neither of those situations involved a country committing atrocities against their own civilian population.
April 9, 20179 yr Not exactly. Do we really want/need to get in the middle of a civil war ? I'd prefer we put more focus on our own domestic issues than get involved with what's going on in Syria. That's the sign of a weak president. We can't afford to have a weak president anymore.
April 9, 20179 yr Is our threshold for striking/taking action gassing? What about the barrel bombs that Assad is using - barrels filled with explosives that get pushed out of a plane? Deadly and if it doesn't kill you it maims you. Does that get us wound up to the point of taking action?
April 9, 20179 yr Author That's the sign of a weak president. We can't afford to have a weak president anymore. You mean like this one? Ahead of attack, Hillary Clinton called for strikes against Syrian airfields - ABC News Essentially the same policy as Trump received completely differently by the left.
April 9, 20179 yr You mean like this one? Ahead of attack, Hillary Clinton called for strikes against Syrian airfields - ABC News 1.) When was she president? What I miss? 2.) I can't stand Hillary so I'm not sure your approach in this one. 3.) If she was president I do wonder if she would have had a more substantial attack on Syria than what Trump did. I wonder if she would have given Russia a courtesy call that she was going to drop 59 missiles in Syria. Guess we'll never know. 4.) I'm all for attacking Syria but if we are going to do it then we need to avoid the smallest and safest option on the table. Obviously that didn't work because Russia got mad and is sending idle threats and we're watching The Masters now. Oh, and Assad attacked his own people again yesterday also. #missionaccomplished ? We need to send a real message and quit being all soft and weak. Period.
April 9, 20179 yr Author 1.) When was she president? What I miss? 2.) I can't stand Hillary so I'm not sure your approach in this one. 3.) If she was president I do wonder if she would have had a more substantial attack on Syria than what Trump did. I wonder if she would have given Russia a courtesy call that she was going to drop 59 missiles in Syria. Guess we'll never know. 4.) I'm all for attacking Syria but if we are going to do it then we need to avoid the smallest and safest option on the table. Obviously that didn't work because Russia got mad and is sending idle threats and we're watching The Masters now. Oh, and Assad attacked his own people again yesterday also. #missionaccomplished ? We need to send a real message and quit being all soft and weak. Period. Sometimes there is only one thing a bully understands. A bigger bully. What did you mean by your "Strong President" comment?
April 9, 20179 yr Sometimes there is only one thing a bully understands. A bigger bully. What did you mean by your "Strong President" comment? For the last 8 years all we've heard is how weak Obama was. After Trump sent 59 missiles to an empty airbase in Syria we all heard about how it is good to have a president with guts, bravery, stones, blah blah blah. When Namecips said he'd prefer we leave Syria alone and fix our own issues I felt it should be stated that a mindset like that is what makes people say Obama was weak. He was hesitant to attack Syria like Trump did and even Obama himself said he regrets how he handled Syria. That mindset has people saying he is and was a weak president. It's unfortunate but that is what people believe and I was reminding us all that Obama is a weak man because he didn't attack like Trump did. We can't be weak anymore. Time to attack and hit them all where it hurts. Word up.
April 9, 20179 yr Assad and the Syrian government have an agreement with the US that forbids them from possessing chemical weapons. They not only broke that agreement but went a step further and murdered innocents. Pres. Trump has an obligation to react to this situation. The US response has been widely accepted as a success. I totally agree.
April 9, 20179 yr The US response has been widely accepted as a success. I totally agree. Very true. The media has been fawning all over Trump since Thursday night. He has to be in Heaven right now feeling all of the love from his strong message sent.
April 9, 20179 yr You mean like this one? Ahead of attack, Hillary Clinton called for strikes against Syrian airfields - ABC News Essentially the same policy as Trump received completely differently by the left. Kind of ironic HRC called for destroying ALL Syrian airbases: a much stronger statement. :lol2:
April 9, 20179 yr That's the sign of a weak president. We can't afford to have a weak president anymore. If we go in as part of a coalition then fine. But we can't or shouldn't go solo. Where is it written that we have to take up every humanitarian effort?
April 9, 20179 yr For the last 8 years all we've heard is how weak Obama was. After Trump sent 59 missiles to an empty airbase in Syria we all heard about how it is good to have a president with guts, bravery, stones, blah blah blah. When Namecips said he'd prefer we leave Syria alone and fix our own issues I felt it should be stated that a mindset like that is what makes people say Obama was weak. He was hesitant to attack Syria like Trump did and even Obama himself said he regrets how he handled Syria. That mindset has people saying he is and was a weak president. It's unfortunate but that is what people believe and I was reminding us all that Obama is a weak man because he didn't attack like Trump did. We can't be weak anymore. Time to attack and hit them all where it hurts. Word up. What is the end game if we go in to Syria? Russia isn't going to sit idly by and let us install a democracy. Are you really ready to go at it with the big guns of the world? If you're going in to Syria then why stop there, might as well go in to North Korea and irritate the Chinese too. Just don't see a reason why we need to get in deep in Syria.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.