Bombs Away...Syria...
 

as of an hour ago...honestly really don't know what to think of this situation...since nobody know's the WHOLE truth of what's going on...:popcorn::coffee:

we really don't know what's going on. we have to trust our military and commander in chief. it certainly is no time to criticise either.

This is a giant FU to Russia.

Wait for the response...

Not the first time a president has used military action in the face of deepening political/personal crises at home.

No but this is our policy. It gets a pass. The dumb thing is Twitter beef which will now require Russia to respond in some way... likely Ukraine.

Gotta throw a dig in though...
 

.

Yep......the Russian Navy steamed out of ports in the area 3 days ago......I hope that’s a sign of things to come.

Trump’s red lines are real

Yep.....and they all are spending 20-30% more after he told them that. He got what he wanted

What do you call NATO without the US in it?


The Iron Curtain.

We have the current situation in Syria because 0bama was a stinking coward and enabled them.

0bama cringned, people died for it.

Even Trump admitted he didn't know what he was talking about when he said it. Euro tech is as good as ours sans the F22 but that thing is meant to fight aliens. European spending was also on the rise prior to Trump.

Russian fleet has been on alert though since last month... nothing new and was in response to Ukrainian developments. Now they will probably make a goodwill stop in Syria.

Protecting America's most vital interests :puke:

Meet the new boss same as the old boss. When will these endless Mideast wars end. What do the deficit hawks say?

I believe that if Trump didn't bomb Syria, he would have lost all credibility with North Korea.

He really didn't have a choice. He had to do it. He made a total ass out of himself in the lead-up to it and the overall backlash will be worse because of it.

BUT

He does get high marks for consistency on this issue unlike the previous administration.

It would appear though the Administration is not on the same page... shocker I know... :eek:

Did they give Tom a TV show? :jump: :lol:

Oh sorry, it's just Alex Jones reacting to the Syria bombing..

Can't take credit for it as I saw it elsewhere but "Operation Divert Stormy"

Do you really think voters care about an old whore looking for money, overrated for sure.

Good old VLAD knows he has to think about it, this guy has bigger balls than Bush.

Of course they care, they voted for the old Whore looking for money.:pound:

I wish we could just leave Syria alone. I have no idea if we're even helping the good or bad guys.

How much, and for how long?
 

It's one thing making a statement against Assad.
This cannot, however, go on indefinitely without congressional approval.

Interesting that it was stressed from the outset
that this was a joint operation involving our allies
from the UK and France, wasn't it?

Are we actually supposed to believe that the US has no
regard for the image it portrays to the rest of the world?

Why not? The War Powers act is toothless, and a president has the power to protect the national interests written into the Constitution. Allowing rogue states to use chemical weapons is against our long term national interests. Unless and until the USA wants to go to actual war versus teaching lessons, Congress has no purpose except as advisors. No consent required. Now, I don't necessarily believe a president should have carte blanche power, as seen in the Vietnam debacle, but your idea that Congressional approval is required in every or most instances is a quaint suggestion at best.

The majority of America would disagree with you.

wonder how many syrians are very grateful the usa bombed assaud?

So the Constitution is just a set of "quaint suggestions" in your world? The President is Commander in Chief of the military, no more and no less. Nothing in the document about his power to initiate war.

This is not a partisan issue, by the way.

Here ya go. Bold by me:

https://aclj.org/national-security/w...ional-approval

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war. The President, meanwhile, derives the power to direct the military at all times, whether or not there is a formal declaration of war, from Article II, Section 2, which names the President Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. The President’s constitutional powers are quite broad in the context of limited military action. Additionally, courts have long upheld the President’s right to be the sole voice of the nation, in charge of conducting our foreign policy. In general, constitutional powers are not so much separated as "linked and sequenced"; Congress's control over the armed forces is structured by appropriation and provision, while the President commands all military forces.

In short, here are the President’s powers as Commander in Chief:

He can order U.S. forces into military action if, in his judgment, the safety or strategic interests of the United States are threatened. Period.

He must inform Congress of these actions within 48 hours of the event.

The troops cannot be committed for more than 60 days, without Congressional approval. He may use an additional 30 days to re-deploy the troops.

Until a new Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) is passed by Congress, our last three presidents have all used the AUMF passed after 9/11/2001 as broad permission to fight all terror groups and acts of terror, anywhere in the world. This is the justification for the thousands of troops presently deployed to Iraq and Syria, and for other Special Operations missions in places like Somalia and Yemen.

The majority of Americans are sheep and know next to nothing about realpolitik.

Those tweets do nothing but increase the likelihood of a stronger Russian response somewhere along the periphery. They were completely unneeded and proved the President truly doesn't understand the game.

It's becoming increasingly clear Mattis, who does, was the driving force behind this respomse.

This is all image... anyone who doesn't get that doesn't understand geo-politics.

Syria is nothing more than a proxy war. Nothing more, nothing less. It's also a proxy war that we are losing. We know we are losing it. We don't care. Losing is fine since Syria holds nearly zero strategic significance to us.

Syria does hold significance to Iran and Russia though which is why we are happy to coordinate with rebels and maintain a presence there. It hampers and undermines the efforts of our rivals forcing them to invest significantly more resources than they would like to.

As far as the lead up to the strike though Trump behaved highly irrationally. The tweets were completely unnecessary as the United States had already set the precedent that use of chemical weapons would trigger an armed American response. All the tweets did was put Russia on blast that it can't defend its interests or allies. Any strike conducted would have demonstrated that without damaging their image as much as a twitter bash. It was a stupid move because now it will require them to respond in some larger way to maintain its own prestige and credibility.

Finally to the strike. This was essentially a NATO effort to send a message to Russia and it's proxies. Militarily nothing of any real significance was destroyed or likely even degraded. It was merely a show of force that the United States and it's NATO allies can strike at will into the heart of a state of the art Russian Air Defense system and there really isn't a damn thing they can do about it. To that effect it served it's purpose.

We got to swing our big stick.

Good write up on the issue here... https://www.commentarymagazine.com/f...-stakes-syria/

another opinionated response.

we as in the USA are winning.

President Trumps behavior is that of a high intelligent leader that knows what it takes to get positive results.

Yes President Trumps tweets are necessary to get the unbiased news to the American public.

Is it possible the air strikes on a dictator that gassed his own peeps also be a message to little rocket boy.

do you copy and paste a large majority of your posts?

Great comeback.

My opinions seems to have a habit of becoming reality lately...

Trumps opinions on the other hand...:lol:

My god man look at his record with Russia so far this year. Just two months ago Russia was cool and sanctions not needed according to this Administration.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...ongress-376813

The guy is a consistent model of inconsistency.

In Syria? No. We've already lost and that's fine... We didn't really care to win.

Nothing in Trump's behavior is consistent. It's actually very erratic. Hence all the 4D chess jokes.

The airstrikes were a continuation of US policy, correctly set by Trump, that chemical weapons will not be used.

I didnt copy and paste anything. I read books.
International Security Issues was my concentration many many moons ago.

We won again in Syria.

everything in President Trumps behavior is consistent and never erratic.


with all that book knowledge you should know how we just won in syria also would assume you are for more secure southern borders in America.

Trump has been under deepening political / personal crises at home since he got elected. The left has seen to that.

Posts like these show you truly don't get it. Go to Google and type in Trump and Russia... start reading articles. It's all over the map.

We didn't WIN anything last night. We sent a message and showed continued commitment to a proxy war that just a week Trump said we were withdrawing from.

Do you even understand what a proxy war is?

The only potential political crises here was created by Trump with his escalation earlier in the week.

The rest of it though is perfectly normal. It's fun to point out the timing and wag the dog feel of this but I'm no fan of the guy and 100% support the strike. Precedent for this action was set prior. He didn't really have a choice and had to act.

Operation Divert Stormy is still funny though.

Consistently erratic, I'm sure you meant :p