Syrian strike after chemical weapons deployment.

Point is, it got nowhere and not for his lack of trying.

 

Well, there aren't participation trophies when you are President. It's not a kindergarten soccer meet. He could have acted unilaterally and he was in his 2nd term, so if it went sideways he was out in 2016 either way.

Trump just about gave Assad the green light to do this a couple of weeks back.

 

 

IMO this strike was cleaning up that mess. Hopefully, Trump will realize, his words matter and can cost lives.

At this point there is no way to get congress to agree to anything, so seeking their approval for a strike on a Syrian airbase would have gone absolutely no where. That's the underlying danger I think. You cant rely on the government to do their job so instead of even trying the most expedient thing for Trump to do is to act on his own. In this case, the action was decisive and likely necessary, but on other future potential measures, (against North Korea for example) who knows if that tactic will be the right approach. A broken Congress has screwed us all.

Very interested to see what N Korea plans to do from this point forward. That whole region could literally turn into a war zone if things accelerate down this path.

 

Yup, all roads on this lead back to W's state of the union speech in 2002, where he put North Korea, Iran, and Iraq on the "Axis of Evil" list and then proceeded to take out the weakest militarily of the three for a trumped up reason.

 

Guess what happened next, Iran and North Korea accelerated their nuclear weapons programs, it's the only thing between them and a Mussolini finale.

Have to disagree here. S.H. wanted everyone to know he had weapons of mass destruction. He admitted to as much. The agent who befriend him here, once captured and on U.S. soil, was quite candid in regards to this. Simply put, he wanted Iran to fear him. And lets not forget, he gassed the Kurds (weapon of mass destruction), amongst other atrocities. I can't say what Iraq would look like today had we actually stayed versus simply leaving once W was out of office, but believe the region may had been in better shape. Unfortunately, the intertwined religions and cultures seem to, from a layperson's viewpoint, be a massive ball of tangled twine and not sure they themselves, let alone a foreign force, will ever be able to untangle and find harmony.

 

The bottom line, mad men run certain countries and these men have in the past, and will again, act in deplorable ways. The question always goes back to, are we as a country OK with the extermination of a people? Are allies OK with such? I don't think so. Rock and a hard place.

Have to disagree here. S.H. wanted everyone to know he had weapons of mass destruction. He admitted to as much. The agent who befriend him here, once captured and on U.S. soil, was quite candid in regards to this. Simply put, he wanted Iran to fear him. And lets not forget, he gassed the Kurds (weapon of mass destruction), amongst other atrocities. I can't say what Iraq would look like today had we actually stayed versus simply leaving once W was out of office, but believe the region may had been in better shape. Unfortunately, the intertwined religions and cultures seem to, from a layperson's viewpoint, be a massive ball of tangled twine and not sure they themselves, let alone a foreign force, will ever be able to untangle and find harmony.

 

The bottom line, mad men run certain countries and these men have in the past, and will again, act in deplorable ways. The question always goes back to, are we as a country OK with the extermination of a people? Are allies OK with such? I don't think so. Rock and a hard place.

 

 

Everyone and their grandmother (at least on that side of the world) knew Saddam was full of shit with his claims.

 

I think LPDADDY's quote summarizes it quite well.

 

US does not understand the Middle East and never will, all they want is war so that they can sell arms to both sides. War is big money

 

 

 

Good.

 

Meanwhile syrian planes just took off from the bombed base. Wtf.

Can't believe CNN didn't lose the connection

Can't believe CNN didn't lose the connection

 

 

Love how the dumb bitch tried to turn the conversation negative and he slapped the shit outta her....

Good.

 

Meanwhile syrian planes just took off from the bombed base. Wtf.

 

Runways can be fixed in a matter of hours. The reporting I have seen, they weren't touched. Planes/helos can't be replaced unless Russia extends a lend/lease option. The physical damage is meaningless. The message sent isn't. Assuming Trump can stay on message.

Not in regards to this event in particular, but...

It's funny how quick Trump supporters switch stance. First supporting his words and viewpoints on an issue, and then when he suddenly does the complete opposite of what he said, you support that as well! Think for yourself you sheeple, make up your own goddamn mind.

 

Had Hillary ordered this attack she would have been an old hag right?

Love how the dumb bitch tried to turn the conversation negative and he slapped the shit outta her....

 

and tried to cut him short and get him off the air

I dont know about you but if 59 Tomahawks landed in my country I would get the message. It doesn't matter how much damage was made. Message is very very clear.

Love how the dumb bitch tried to turn the conversation negative and he slapped the shit outta her....

I don't trust a single thing that guy is saying. He and others are telling Trump and the base exactly what they want to hear. The Assad opposition are all jihadis. They need U.S. firepower to destroy Assad in order to expand their caliphate. These jihadis are slick and have not only faked attacks in the past, but have shamelessly used children. Look at this child. She's reading a fcuking script!

 

 

The 7 year old even has her own twitter.

https://twitter.com/AlabedBana

I dont know about you but if 59 Tomahawks landed in my country I would get the message. It doesn't matter how much damage was made. Message is very very clear.

 

Yep, Tomahawk is not necessarily the softest plush toy you can throw at someone. The message is clear: you got our attention.

It isn't just a choice between either engage in a strike here or there, versus full-on nation-building. We IMO should not be engaging in nation-building in these areas. That takes years to do successfully, and the modern Democratic party IMO will always undermine any such project, due to always trying to pull the soldiers out. But we can't just take a completely hands-off policy either.

 

Doing so only will create the conditions whereby more conflicts in other areas of the world are more likely to flare up and possibly one so bad that the U.S. would get drawn in big-time. As for North Korea, China needs North Korea for national security purposes, because North Korea is one of the best areas to invade mainland China from. So if the regime were to fall, in addition to tens of thousands of NK refugees flooding across their border, China also ends up with a strong American ally and an American military presence directly across their border in an area great to invade them from.

 

The U.S. has about 30,000 troops stationed in South Korea and South Korea is an ally. And if NK was allowed to attack SK without any blowback from the U.S., and especially with U.S. troops there, then it would just give license to the Chinese, Iranians, and Russians to do whatever they want. So we tell the Chinese, in the event of a potential flare-up, that if NK was to try anything of real severity, we will flat-out militarily destroy that regime, period. And the Chinese will make sure that NK doesn't do anything.

Wheels, I actually think you are doing quite well on some of the political analysis as far as domestic affairs are concerned. But as said before, you know nothing about Korea (both South and North) and China. NK is the least of China's concern; they likely wouldn't even make the grade from China's perspective. As for SK, you don't know how much is at stake on the commerce between the two. I won't go into details but a recent scuffle between China & SK had resulted China pulling its civilian tourism on SK and the tourism industry is now grasping for air. You have no idea how China has certain stronghold on some of SK's industries and can literally make or break them.

 

And this is getting OT...regrets.

Wheels, I actually think you are doing quite well on some of the political analysis as far as domestic affairs are concerned. But as said before, you know nothing about Korea (both South and North) and China. NK is the least of China's concern; they likely wouldn't even make the grade from China's perspective. As for SK, you don't know how much is at stake on the commerce between the two. I won't go into details but a recent scuffle between China & SK had resulted China pulling its civilian tourism on SK and the tourism industry is now grasping for air. You have no idea how China has certain stronghold on some of SK's industries and can literally make or break them.

 

And this is getting OT...regrets.

 

Thanks, but I think you might've misunderstood me some. I wasn't saying NK is a threat to China, I said that their existence is very important to China's national security. If that regime was to fall, then China has a real border security issue from their perspective. I never said anything about SK and China, except that if there was a real threat of a flare-up, that the U.S. should tell China it will destroy the NK regime if it all-out attacks.

They got rid of Saddam and Khadafy and we are in this mess. Assad is no choir boy,but he is the best choice at the present. Before they started meddling with Syria, all religions were protected in that country, we now have a major disaster.

US does not understand the Middle East and never will, all they want is war so that they can sell arms to both sides. War is big money

Funny how this didn´t get a single response. Probably becaue it´s daddy, a resepected, veteran user.

Anybody else had better put their flame suits on...

 

I don´t see anyone but alternate media questioning wether the attack was really carried out by the syrian regime.

It seems unlikely that assad is that stupid at this point, no?

Funny how this didn´t get a single response. Probably becaue it´s daddy, a resepected, veteran user.

Anybody else had better put their flame suits on...

 

I don´t see anyone but alternate media questioning wether the attack was really carried out by the syrian regime.

It seems unlikely that assad is that stupid at this point, no?

 

Personally, I disagree with the notion LPDADDY makes that the U.S. just wants war. I am sure portions of the defense industry love it, but much of the U.S. government wants nothing to do with it.

 

Also I hope your aren't insinuating that the U.S. gassed the Syrian people, blamed Assad, and then used it as justification for launching the Tomahawks. IMO Assad wasn't being stupid, he is testing his limits.

Thanks, but I think you might've misunderstood me some. I wasn't saying NK is a threat to China, I said that their existence is very important to China's national security. If that regime was to fall, then China has a real border security issue from their perspective. I never said anything about SK and China, except that if there was a real threat of a flare-up, that the U.S. should tell China it will destroy the NK regime if it all-out attacks.

 

I knew exactly what you were saying (somehow, that sounds somewhat strange ) and I maintain that you don't know what you are talking about and your assumptions on Korea (S & N) are not remotely close of being correct. But...you are, of course, welcome to express your views.

I knew exactly what you were saying (somehow, that sounds somewhat strange ) and I maintain that you don't know what you are talking about and your assumptions on Korea (S & N) are not remotely close of being correct. But...you are, of course, welcome to express your views.

 

I am not sure what you meant about my assumptions on the Koreas though. The only thing I stated about them was my opinion of North Korea's strategic importance to China from a national security standpoint. Otherwise, I agree with you, I know nothing about the Koreas.

I am not sure what you meant about my assumptions on the Koreas though. The only thing I stated about them was my opinion of North Korea's strategic importance to China from a national security standpoint. Otherwise, I agree with you, I know nothing about the Koreas.

 

Wheels I will give you two pointers, learn when to quit an argument and second do not argue with VCR about Asian affairs, international and national, if you knew him you'd realize how futile that would be, just trust what he says because he certainly knows what he's talking about.

Wheels I will give you two pointers, learn when to quit an argument and second do not argue with VCR about Asian affairs, international and national, if you knew him you'd realize how futile that would be, just trust what he says because he certainly knows what he's talking about.

 

I'm not arguing. He said I know nothing about the Koreas, which I agree with and I am always interested to pick VCR's brain on Asian issues. But I never was saying anything about them in the first place, just giving an opinion about the U.S. and dealing with North Korea via China.