Chemical attack in Syria

[Old_Trapper70]

So. . .what changed? Do you feel more comfortable with a childish, untrustworthy president that makes decisions based on emotions and on his need to "score one," rather than with a thoughtful, rule following president?

And if so. . .why?

Notice that he did not even take the time to return to DC, and the situation room there to make his decision with persons responsible for advising him in such matters. Instead he conferred with them on Skype while the Chinese PM was waiting. IMO it was all for show, and to distract from his other failures. Of course, what kind of a success is it when a coward tells others to bomb an air base some miles away, and then doesn't even target the facilities where the weapons are held.

 

[grumpy]

Why? He hasn't before - this isn't the first time the Syrians have used nerve agents.

Yes i understand that, but we didn't blow up an airport the last time..

Presumably the same consequences as all the other red lines that have been crossed which is pretty much nothing of consequence. Puff and bluster and denounce and re-distribute a few stones and nothing else. What do you think the US/NATO/European responses will be? Send in the troops and tanks or park a carrier force off the coast? Do you seriously consider US/NATO troops going head to head in the desert?

I hope it doesn't come to that, but if it continues Trump will act.. and that concerns me more than a little bit..

 

[grumpy]

But the reasons are the same. The only difference is that in 2013 Russia offered a diplomatic alternative, which failed, thus giving the Republicans reason to prevent Obama from taking military action.

Here is my response from before..One of the reasons I was against Congress giving support for Obama's airstrikes in 2013 was worry not only over the president's ambivalence but also possible escalation. Presidential ambivalence is gone, but my worry remains.. Obama's Ambivalence..A DIFFERENT PRESIDENT, just a couple major differences.. We all know why Obama went to congress, hell even most liberals know that...And Obama got rid of ALL chemical weapons with out firing a shot.. success..

 

[Openmind]

Yes i understand that, but we didn't blow up an airport the last time..

I hope it doesn't come to that, but if it continues Trump will act.. and that concerns me more than a little bit..

Dear. . .we didn't "blow up" an airport this time either! We made a big show, spent a lot of tax payers dollars, threw a few more of those dollars in Trump's pockets. . .and accomplished NOTHING, but to create more international chaos and a greater risk of WWIII!

Trump needed a "win," and he acted on a spur of the moment! Within 3 days he switched his "policy" from being somewhat positive toward ASSAD to making a show of "force". . .which was just a big publicity stunt!

And he had the guts to say that if Obama got involved in Syria, it would be because his polls numbers were plummeting. . .talk about "projection," even then! That alone should tell you what drove him to this crazy stunt!

Trump's View of Syria: How It Evolved, in 19 Tweets - The New York ...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/us/politics/donald-trump-syria-twitter.html

 

[Aus22]

While I think Trump will get away with his one off attack on Syria I do not think he should repeat this particularly in Korea. An attack on North Korea would result in an attack on Seoul l . As it is on the border it would be bomb before the USA could move in to defend it.

 

[dogtowner]

While I think Trump will get away with his one off attack on Syria I do not think he should repeat this particularly in Korea. An attack on North Korea would result in an attack on Seoul l . As it is on the border it would be bomb before the USA could move in to defend it.

Kim would need to execute an act of war imo
And I don't think Kim is that stupid.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Here is my response from before..One of the reasons I was against Congress giving support for Obama's airstrikes in 2013 was worry not only over the president's ambivalence but also possible escalation. Presidential ambivalence is gone, but my worry remains.. Obama's Ambivalence..A DIFFERENT PRESIDENT, just a couple major differences.. We all know why Obama went to congress, hell even most liberals know that...And Obama got rid of ALL chemical weapons with out firing a shot.. success..

Evidently he didn't get rid of "ALL" chemical weapons. However, how does that justify Trumps violation of the Constitution, and the war Powers Act?

"SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

(b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp

 

[The Scotsman]

Turkey matters most as they are involved land and sea.

Agreed! Turkey does indeed have some land and a coastline to boot..... that concise geopolitical assessment seems to have hit the nail smack bang firmly on the head.... you've convinced me!

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Kim would need to execute an act of war imo
And I don't think Kim is that stupid.

Syria didn't, at least not towards the U.S. And perhaps one could consider No. Korea's constant attempts at developing a missile to reach US territory, or its selling of nuclear materials on the black market, as threat enough.

 

[grumpy]

Evidently he didn't get rid of "ALL" chemical weapons. However, how does that justify Trumps violation of the Constitution, and the war Powers Act?

Even if Trump had not ordered the United States' first direct military strike on the Syria's government since that country's civil war began six years ago, he would probably need to go to Congress to get authorization just to keep up the status quo from the previous administration.

President Barack Obama never launched Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian government airfield, but even his drone strikes in the region were legally flimsy.

That's because the only two authorizations of military force on the books right now are 15 years old and arguably out of context with the actions of both Trump and Obama. In the year after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Congress authorized President George W. Bush to battle al-Qaeda.

 

[grumpy]

I don't know if this is true or not..still searching..THE TRUMP EFFECT: China Threatens to Eradicate North Korea’s Nuclear Facilities
With everyone putting down new and/or revised "red lines", be it on Syria or North Korea, it was now China's turn to reveal its "red" or rather "bottom line", and in a harshly worded editorial titled "The United States Must Not Choose a Wrong Direction to Break the DPRK Nuclear Deadlock on Wednesday" Beijing warned it would attack North Korea's facilities producing nuclear bombs, effectively engaging in an act of war, if North Korea crosses China's "bottom line."
http://www.zerohedge.com/

 

[dogtowner]

Agreed! Turkey does indeed have some land and a coastline to boot..... that concise geopolitical assessment seems to have hit the nail smack bang firmly on the head.... you've convinced me!

Russia can't sail out of the Black Sea unless Turkey let's them. Can't drive there without Turkey, Iran Iraq being ok. Ditto fly volumes.
This is about Vlad trying to maintain the advantage he had over BO but that ship has sailed and it's not turning back.

 

[Aus22]

Syria was aa danger to the USA and allies because having used chemical weapons it had weaken the legitimacy of the Syrian Government and thus strengthen its enemies including IS. Also Turkey which has no leader at the moment is unstable and rebels could move in and attack allies such as Australia on Anzac Day next Tuesday

 

[The Scotsman]

Russia can't sail out of the Black Sea unless Turkey let's them.

For what its worth they generally come down through the English Channel and into the Med through Gibralta, but you're right the Bosphorus is the route for the Black Sea. But you seem to be getting way ahead of the actual game by leaping to scenarios of conflict between NATO and CIS, is this something that you would approve of?

This is about Vlad trying to maintain the advantage he had over BO but that ship has sailed and it's not turning back.

I think this is the Russian Military and Iran carrying on their long term strategy of gaining political and military influence in the region and has little to do with Turkey which largely irrelevent as its only a bit player in the game - just a door to Europe for refugees perhaps? I also doubt the Russian Military gives a crap about the last American President as the Russians don't generally invest too much time in individuals unles they are of immidiate use? Russians play chess. They play the long game whereas the US and Europe cannot get past the next news cycle let alone the next election cycle.

Are you of the oppinion that this situation is about a moral obligation for the US/Europe, to rid the world of a ruler whose killing of men, women and children by the use of WMD should be dealt with through the use of force?

 

[Old_Trapper70]

That's because the only two authorizations of military force on the books right now are 15 years old and arguably out of context with the actions of both Trump and Obama. In the year after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Congress authorized President George W. Bush to battle al-Qaeda.

Obama asked, your Repugnant one refused to act. Trump has never asked.