Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: MillCreek on April 06, 2017, 11:42:07 PM
-
The President orders a strike against the Syrian airfield implicated in this week's nerve gas attack against civilians. The US Navy obliges by launching 59 Tomahawks off a couple of Burke class destroyers in the eastern Med.
I wonder how this changes things for President Assad.
-
From skimming the stories this morning, it seems Trump is mostly supported. It seems his guys devised a good strategy of decisive destruction of a single target, most likely the source of the chemical attacks. Of course the dems, while mostly supporting the strike (sans that moron from Hawaii) are whining that they weren't consulted. I reckon the R's would have done the same.
Interesting slight tangent: In her big interview yesterday, just hours before the strike, Clinton said that we should do just what Trump did. Gotta wonder if she was given a head's up from her friends still in State that this was happening, given that she and Obama did nothing when it was their turn.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/07/hours-before-airstrikes-hillary-clinton-called-for-bombing-syrian-airfields.html
-
I have to wonder what Putin's response will be, or if perhaps Trump and Putin discussed this beforehand.
-
the dems, while mostly supporting the strike (sans that moron from Hawaii) are whining that they weren't consulted
They aren't the only ones and they aren't entirely wrong.
There is no reason to forego congressional debate now, just as there was no reason to forego congressional debate when Obama considered taking the nation to war against Syria in 2013.
And of course Trump himself expressed similar views in the past
What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval.
Would Congress block him like they did Obama? I kind of don't think so.
-
Supposedly Putin was notified about an hour before they hit.
-
Hmmm . . . if it was the site of the gas attack's origin that was hit, was any warehoused gas released by the explosions?
-
Hmmm . . . if it was the site of the gas attack's origin that was hit, was any warehoused gas released by the explosions?
That would be poetic justice if it happened.
-
They aren't the only ones and they aren't entirely wrong.
And of course Trump himself expressed similar views in the past
Would Congress block him like they did Obama? I kind of don't think so.
Well, this isn't war. The Commander in Chief is given some discretionary power specifically to swiftly act against threats like this. If he was looking at boots on the ground or long term, multiple evolutions of missile strikes, certainly he should go to Congress. For something like this, he (or any President) needs to be able to swiftly act. Taking a single, defined action like this to Congress would usually mean he might be able to act in a few weeks or so, when they are done arguing. This is nearly a textbook example of a necessarily swift response.
-
I want swift and decisive missile strikes against people who keep using the phrase "boots on the ground."
-
What about taking many, many "swift actions" on a foreign country over a long period of time? Is that not war?
I call BS on the Syrian Govt. using gas... just like the first time it was reported in 2013. This is just a ruse to get involved.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/hillary-clinton-approved-delivering-libyas-sarin-gas-to-syrian-rebels-seymour-hersh/5522647
Because hey, that Saudi oil pipeline has to be built and Israel could use the regional instability to expand its influence. Got at it 'merica!
-
The Commander in Chief is given some discretionary power specifically to swiftly act against threats like this.
Threats against us or our allies, sure.
For something like this, he (or any President) needs to be able to swiftly act.
So is this what Obama should have done in 2013, instead of punting to congress?
-
There are treaties against chemical weapons, but I don't know what our obligations are.
I would like to know what proof they have that Assad ordered it, but I haven't seen that (or looked for it I guess).
I kind of wonder if this was just a chance for Trump to flex his muscles a bit as COC. I guess it is better than drawing a line for someone to cross.
-
So is this what Obama should have done in 2013, instead of punting to congress?
VS constantly redrawing a line not to cross "or else"? Yes. Even his SECSTATE agrees they did it wrong.
You can argue against meddling entirely and minding our own business, but if we are going to meddle, get off the wobbly fence and get with the von Clausewitz.
-
if we are going to meddle, get off the wobbly fence and get with the von Clausewitz.
Well that would definitely require Congress.
I went back and found the OLD syria thread (http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=40918.0), not much has changed. =|
-
After 8 years of Obama ....... we HAD 59 Tomahawk missiles left in our stores? [popcorn] :laugh:
-
Well, this isn't war. The Commander in Chief is given some discretionary power specifically to swiftly act against threats like this. If he was looking at boots on the ground or long term, multiple evolutions of missile strikes, certainly he should go to Congress. For something like this, he (or any President) needs to be able to swiftly act. Taking a single, defined action like this to Congress would usually mean he might be able to act in a few weeks or so, when they are done arguing. This is nearly a textbook example of a necessarily swift response.
More importantly, he needs to be able to act decisively and secretly. If the strike had been debated for a week or three in Congress, Assad would have had pleenty of time to move the planes and weapons away from that airfield and any airfield within reach of our missiles.
Heck, didn't Bill Clinton do something similar during his presidency?
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/clinton-orders-air-attack-on-iraq
-
After 8 years of Obama ....... we HAD 59 Tomahawk missiles left in our stores? [popcorn] :laugh:
I was wondering why it wasn't an even 60.
-
I was wondering why it wasn't an even 60.
One got stuck in the launch tube.
-
More importantly, he needs to be able to act decisively and secretly. If the strike had been debated for a week or three in Congress, Assad would have had pleenty of time to move the planes and weapons away from that airfield and any airfield within reach of our missiles.
It's not like Congress needs to debate specific strikes, the AUMF can be pretty broad so I'm not sure where the secrecy needs to come in. And, I could be wrong but, I doubt Assad could get his stuff out of our range and still be able to use it himself so... mission accomplished?
Heck, didn't Bill Clinton do something similar during his presidency?
So Hillary would have done it and Bill did do it? Wonderful footsteps to follow in. :facepalm:
If the United States has not been attacked or threatened, congressional approval should be sought, not merely for legal purposes but also to ensure that complexities have been thought through and public support for a risky intervention has been won.
-
A Russian warship is in the eastern Mediterranean, headed toward the area where the U.S. destroyers have been operating.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04/07/russian-warship-steams-toward-us-destroyers-that-launched-syria-strikes.html
Granted, Russian ships in that area are nothing new. Just wondering if this is more than routine.
-
I was wondering why it wasn't an even 60.
"Hey guys, check the 'best before' dates on all the Tomahawks and see what we need to use up soon."
-
Kaboom!
https://youtu.be/7vbCnTSBMAw?t=17s
-
"Hey guys, check the 'best before' dates on all the Tomahawks and see what we need to use up soon."
I could relate an anecdote about a fast attack sub engaged in exercises at the AUTEC range and getting to shoot five end of life warshots where three of them didn't detonate, but I won't
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi972.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fae210%2FSDDAVEPOWAY%2FMore%2520Junk%2Fimage-2184820157_zpsw6u7gwhl.jpg&hash=b3a70d55ec6dce6a96a12b11875fb6d73494cb72) (http://s972.photobucket.com/user/SDDAVEPOWAY/media/More%20Junk/image-2184820157_zpsw6u7gwhl.jpg.html)
-
Late to the party, but I think DJT should have taken the advice and cautions he gave Obama. The only possible reason this makes ANY sense whatsobleepingever is that it might be a message to Li'l Kim. Other than that, this is pure neocon interventionist stupidity.
<Fred Thompson voice, in The Hunt for Red October> "This business will get out of control. It will get out of control, and we'll be lucky to live through it".
-
If this is a message to Assad--you do not use chemical weapons, per UN agreements--and nothing more, I'm okay with it. If Trump goes further without there being more chemical attacks, I'm not okay with it.
-
I would be a bit shocked if Trump or one of his people did not have long conversation about this with Russia before it happened. More than just "stay out of the way".
-
So do you think Putin is just posturing, or does he mean business?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3293221/russia-and-iran-say-they-will-respond-to-american-aggression-following-air-strike-in-syria/
-
So do you think Putin is just posturing, or does he mean business?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3293221/russia-and-iran-say-they-will-respond-to-american-aggression-following-air-strike-in-syria/
I am saying the headlines are only a piece and there is a lot we don't see. I could be completely wrong about what I am not seeing. I just have a hard time believing we are just reacting with no planning or preparation involved.
IMO, this attack last week was the equivalent of a token gesture. It doesn't necessarily mean we are rolling in an army next. At least I hope not. I see little or nothing to gain by getting heavily involved in Syria.
-
My bet is if the Russians respond, it'll be by messing up some rebels that we're supporting.
-
Well, now we hear that the Ruskies knew about the chemical attack in advance, and bombed the hospital later to cover the evidence.
This is going to get sticky.