Trump bombs Syria

Meant to be a distraction from the Russian hearings. It's sad the chemical attack happened but all of a sudden some left and right have awaken after 70 years of us looking the other way when we ourselves have killed women and children in war? Talk about taking CHIP away from poor kids in our own country and some will die.

He should have kept his fucking nose out of Syria, let the Russians and Assad take care of ISIS and then their own.

If we would have stayed out of ME and just let whatever happened to Israel happen this world might have been a better place.

Vikingwoman wrote:The thing about all of this is I don't see any other country backing us up. Now that was an act of war on our part. So if Iran and Syria and Russia start bombing us are we alone in this?

I saw a list of countries backing us on this last night, about 10-15 including Turkey, Saudi Arabia and one other muslim country. Well I say these muslim countries should take care of this and not us.

Well I say these muslim countries should take care of this and not us.


For 35 years Israel has been relatively safe with no real threats from adjacent nation states. This corresponds with the first Gulf War, the second war, and this alleged war on terror. The saudis are one of the world's largest customers for MIC, and war and instability in the Middle East is big business which the American Taxpayer ultimately pays. The western colonial world war one arbitrary divisions have come to roost. It is long past the time to cut and run and let the chips fall where they may. Terror attacks will happen today, and 15 years from today because they are not from nation states, and are criminal acts. Yet, we have turned the same from criminal acts to acts of war from non existing geographic regions or nations.....we are fighting a war with an idea while feeding MIC enormous profits......350 billion increase in the defense budget......President Trump is a pathological liar, and now he is guilty of the very thing he criticized others, but symbolism is needed for propaganda. Military worship in this country is a chronic and terminal condition.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/middleeast/syria.html

(Republicans would not support Obama's request to bomb Syria in 2013.)


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/republicans-strike-syria-trump_us_58e6f71de4b051b9a9da355d

(Now they're all for it.)




http://ktla.com/2017/04/07/top-republicans-who-opposed-syria-attack-under-obama-now-praising-trumps-strike/

Many of the congressional Republicans who are praising President Donald Trump’s decision to strike a Syrian airfield were opposed to President Obama’s request to approve a similar action against Syria in 2013.


U.S. Speaker of the House Rep. Paul Ryan, left, and Senate Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell speak to members of the media in front of the West Wing of the White House Feb. 27, 2017. (Credit: Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Trump ordered the launch of more than 50 tomahawk cruise missiles on Thursday in retaliation for Syrian leader Bashar Al-Assad’s reported use of chemical weapons against his own people. In August of 2013, after Assad used chemical weapons in a similar scenario against people in the Syrian city of Ghouta, Obama requested congressional permission to launch air strikes against the Assad regime.

Many Republicans opposed his request. One of the most prominent was Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who on Friday tweeted out his support for Trump’s strike, writing, “This was a clear signal from America that Bashar al Assad can no longer use chemical weapons against his own people with impunity.”

In a speech on the Senate floor in 2013, however, McConnell announced his opposition to Obama’s proposal, saying, “A vital national security risk is clearly not at play, there are just too many unanswered questions about our long-term strategy in Syria, including the fact that this proposal is utterly detached from a wider strategy to end the civil war there, and on the specific question of deterring the use of chemical weapons, the President’s proposal appears to be based on a contradiction. Either we will strike targets that threaten the stability of the regime — something the President says he does not intend to do — or we will execute a strike so narrow as to be a mere demonstration.”

Asked about the shift, a spokesperson for Sen. McConnell referred CNN’s KFile to comments he made in a press conference Friday morning.

“Yeah, let me tell you the difference,” McConnell said. “Secretary Kerry, I guess in order to reassure the left-leaning members of his own party, said it would sort be like a pinprick. You know, it really would not be of any great consequence. I don’t know whether he had in mind knocking out a couple of camels or what. But this was a strike that was well-planned, well-executed, went right to the heart of the matter, which is using chemical weapons. So had I seen that kind of approach by President Obama, I’m sure I would’ve signed up.”

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan also endorsed Trump’s actions in a statement released Thursday night. “Tonight the United States responded,” he said. “This action was appropriate and just.”

But in 2013, he too opposed Obama’s proposal to attack Syria, saying, “I believe the President’s proposed military strike in Syria cannot achieve its stated objectives. In fact, I fear it will make things worse.”

Sen. Marco Rubio, who called Trump’s actions “the right move” in an interview with CNN on Friday, said of Obama’s proposal in 2013, “While I have long argued forcefully for engagement in empowering the Syrian people, I have never supported the use of U.S. military force in the conflict. And I still don’t.”

He added, “I remain unconvinced that the use of force proposed here will work. The only thing that will prevent Assad from using chemical weapons in the future is for the Syrian people to remove him from power. The strike the administration wants us to approve I do not believe furthers that goal. And in fact, I believe U.S. military action of the type contemplated here might prove to be counterproductive.”

Sen. Orrin Hatch approvingly tweeted of Trump’s decision to attack on Thursday night, but in 2013, he said in a statement, “What is clear is that launching a few missiles will do nothing to end Syria’s civil war, and is neither a real strategy to stop the deployment of chemical weapons in Syria nor a guarantee that chemical weapons won’t be used in the future by the Assad regime. That is not a plan for the region.

“That’s why I continue to have strong reservations about authorizing the use of force against Syria.”

House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz tweeted “God Bless the USA” following news of the strikes. But in 2013, Chaffetz repeatedly issued statements declaring his opposition to attacking Syria saying he saw “no clear and present danger to the USA to justify going to war in Syria.”

Some members who praised Trump’s action went as far as to introduce legislation to stop military action in Syria in 2013.

Rep. Ted Poe of Texas issued a statement declaring the administration “swift and decisive retaliation was an appropriate and proportional response to this horrific crime.” But Poe had a remarkably different view of Syria action in 2013 when he argued the administration didn’t have the legal authority to attack Syria. Poe introduced a bill which would prohibit the use of funds for military action in Syria unless authorized by Congress.

Poe told CNN’s KFile in a statement that “a lot has changed” and so has his stance.

“Syria and Russia agreed to turn over all of Assad’s chemical weapons in order to avert US military action. They lied,” Poe said. “Assad brazenly used chemical weapons against his own people this week, killing 80 civilians including children. It has been the longstanding policy of the United States to draw a line in the sand when it comes to weapons of mass destruction. The diplomatic option failed.”

He continued, “That is why I support President Trump’s decision to launch a limited, targeted strike against the airfield from which this heinous attack was launched. If the President would like the expand the mission and take further action, he should consult with Congress.”

CNN has reached out to Rubio, Chaffetz, Hatch, and Ryan, but did not immediately receive a response.

Some Republicans have shown consistency on the issue of striking Syria. Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham supported Obama’s efforts, and likewise endorsed Trump’s actions. Other Republicans, such as Rep. Thomas Massie and Sen. Rand Paul, oppose action in Syria and criticized Trump for acting unilaterally and not going to congress to request permission beforehand. They held similar views in 2013.

Many prominent Democrats who supported Obama’s request for congressional of approval called on Trump to ask for the same authority. Senator Tim Kaine supports military action against Assad, and supported Obama’s proposal in 2013. He criticized Trump for not getting congressional approval beforehand. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi similarly supported Obama’s request, and stated that he should request from congress an Authorization for Use of Military Force.

*************

ppaca wrote:Meant to be a distraction from the Russian hearings. It's sad the chemical attack happened but all of a sudden some left and right have awaken after 70 years of us looking the other way when we ourselves have killed women and children in war? Talk about taking CHIP away from poor kids in our own country and some will die.

He should have kept his fucking nose out of Syria, let the Russians and Assad take care of ISIS and then their own.

If we would have stayed out of ME and just let whatever happened to Israel happen this world might have been a better place.

Naive... to be nice.

The Risk

2seaoat wrote:Well I say these muslim countries should take care of this and not us.


For 35 years Israel has been relatively safe with no real threats from adjacent nation states.  This corresponds with the first Gulf War, the second war, and this alleged war on terror.  The saudis are one of the world's largest customers for MIC, and war and instability in the Middle East is big business which the American Taxpayer ultimately pays.  The western colonial world war one arbitrary divisions have come to roost.  It is long past the time to cut and run and let the chips fall where they may.  Terror attacks will happen today, and 15 years from today because they are not from nation states, and are criminal acts.  Yet, we have turned the same from criminal acts to acts of war from non existing geographic regions or nations.....we are fighting a war with an idea while feeding MIC enormous profits......350 billion increase in the defense budget......President Trump is a pathological liar, and now he is guilty of the very thing he criticized others, but symbolism is needed for propaganda.   Military worship in this country is a chronic and terminal condition.

Rarely does one encounter such galloping ignorance. The attack on Syria was only partially about that regime's use of chemical weapons. You might note that Syria bombed that same town with conventional munitions shortly after the missile strikes, so it didn't really put the fear of God into them, did it?

It was also about Trump's Mar-a-Lago diplomacy and N. Korea. It put China and N. Korea on notice. China is now willing to cooperate in handling the demented loon in N. Korea.

Your bore-sighted view of conflict in the Middle East as being only about Israel and the military-industrial complex belies an inability to comprehend an issue of staggering complexity. Sure, Israel and the military-industrial complex are part of it, but that's all, only a part. There's also the Sunni-Shia divide in the Islamic nations. And don't forget oil--the price of which has driven Russia to near bankruptcy but barely hurt the Western economies.

And while we're on that subject, taxpayer's dollars don't fund anything, you moron. Every dollar the US spends is a brand new dollar, created out of thin air. Read up on Modern Monetary Theory so you can begin to understand contemporary economics. Our government taxes citizens to create demand for our monetarily sovereign dollars and to encourage or discourage segments of the economy that may be deemed useful or deleterious to stability and growth but taxes DO NOT fund spending. That is a myth created by the debt-hawks to stifle domestic spending. The United States can pay any bill denominated in US dollars forever, per no less an authority than the loathsome and detestable Alan Greenspan.

Regarding the military-industrial complex, it has enforced the Pax Americana since the end of WWII. Even the most cursory reading of history shows that this has been one of the longest eras of relative world peace. Sure, there have been wars all over the globe but nothing that approaches the invasion of China in '32 by the Japanese and the subsequent Rape of Nanking in '37 or Germany's occupation of most of Europe in '39 and its invasion of Russia beginning in '41.

I'm no fan of excessive military power but I can't help but believe that the Pax Americana backed-up by our military might has kept things tamped down to a remarkable degree for 70 years. We have 10 nuclear-powered Supercarriers, nobody else has more than two or three. We have a like number of Nuclear Ballistic Missile subs. We have countless destroyers and cruisers, each which can launch hell-on-earth from a 1000 miles away. We have bombers and fighters and tankers galore. And with all this, our restraint in the face of continuous provocation has been nothing short of remarkable.

There is also the fact that every dollar spent on military stuff eventually enters the civilian economy. It buys Big Macs and TVs and Iphones and all the other stuff we enjoy.

Wise up, Pop. As Jacques Barzun put it: "The complexity of things, the multiplicity of minds and wills and the uncertainty of outcomes form the basis for keeping one's opinions ever subject to revision".

As someone else put it: "He not busy being born is busy dying".

2seaoat wrote:Wait I'm not getting this? Why is Hillary to blame as SOS when Obama tried to get congressional approval to strike?

SOS Clinton was for safe zones in Syria which involved no fly zones and the threat of American military actions.   This man said they waited for the same as they were slaughtered, and now for her to criticize President Trump for finally intervening and striking the dictator and his implements of air warfare was hypocritical.  President Obama and SOS Clinton disagreed on the use of military to secure these zones, and this poor man who had just been gassed expressed his human anger toward Clinton for more hypocritical words and thanked President Trump.  I tend to think this was more show for the Chinese who were in Florida with President Trump making threats that he will go alone against North Korea, and getting some credibility for the same.

The Chinese signed an agreement last year they would help w/ North Korea.

Vikingwoman wrote:

The Chinese signed an agreement last year they would help w/ North Korea.

The following is only a few hours old. They signed an agreement but Trump--or more likely the normal members of his team--reinforced it with the Syria strikes.

http://thehill.com/policy/international/327942-trump-spoke-with-chinese-leader-about-anti-missile-system-in-s-korea

2seaoat wrote:Wait I'm not getting this? Why is Hillary to blame as SOS when Obama tried to get congressional approval to strike?

SOS Clinton was for safe zones in Syria which involved no fly zones and the threat of American military actions.   This man said they waited for the same as they were slaughtered, and now for her to criticize President Trump for finally intervening and striking the dictator and his implements of air warfare was hypocritical.  President Obama and SOS Clinton disagreed on the use of military to secure these zones, and this poor man who had just been gassed expressed his human anger toward Clinton for more hypocritical words and thanked President Trump.  I tend to think this was more show for the Chinese who were in Florida with President Trump making threats that he will go alone against North Korea, and getting some credibility for the same.

NEW YORK -- Hillary Clinton said she supported more aggressive action in Syria while she was secretary of state, and spoke out about what she believes the U.S. should do about the worsening crisis. She addressed the issue in what was billed as her first public interview since her election defeat, at Tina Brown’s Women in the World summit Thursday in New York.

Clinton said that during President Obama’s first term, she and then-CIA director Leon Panetta had created “a plan to move aggressively to provide backup to what I thought would be a one-sided battle — this was before ISIS.”

“I believed then, that we should’ve done more at that point,” Clinton said. “These are not easy decisions that’s why you want to get the best info you can ... I then did promote a no-fly zone, I still believe we should’ve done a no-fly zone. I think we should’ve been more willing to confront Assad.”

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Clinton said, had “an air force, and that air force is the cause of most of the civilian deaths,” which is why she had supported a no-fly zone.http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-says-she-supported-more-aggressive-action-in-syria/

Telstar wrote:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/why-did-trump-bomb-syria-215001

2seaoat wrote:Well I say these muslim countries should take care of this and not us.


For 35 years Israel has been relatively safe with no real threats from adjacent nation states.  This corresponds with the first Gulf War, the second war, and this alleged war on terror.  The saudis are one of the world's largest customers for MIC, and war and instability in the Middle East is big business which the American Taxpayer ultimately pays.  The western colonial world war one arbitrary divisions have come to roost.  It is long past the time to cut and run and let the chips fall where they may.  Terror attacks will happen today, and 15 years from today because they are not from nation states, and are criminal acts.  Yet, we have turned the same from criminal acts to acts of war from non existing geographic regions or nations.....we are fighting a war with an idea while feeding MIC enormous profits......350 billion increase in the defense budget......President Trump is a pathological liar, and now he is guilty of the very thing he criticized others, but symbolism is needed for propaganda.   Military worship in this country is a chronic and terminal condition.

There were terror attacks when I was stationed in the ME in 1968 and before, there will always be terror attacks. Isn't good enough for Trump not let them into this country and then everyone shitting in their britches can finally come out of their house and enjoy life.

PkrBum wrote:

ppaca wrote:Meant to be a distraction from the Russian hearings. It's sad the chemical attack happened but all of a sudden some left and right have awaken after 70 years of us looking the other way when we ourselves have killed women and children in war? Talk about taking CHIP away from poor kids in our own country and some will die.

He should have kept his fucking nose out of Syria, let the Russians and Assad take care of ISIS and then their own.

If we would have stayed out of ME and just let whatever happened to Israel happen this world might have been a better place.

Naive... to be nice.

Tell me why we should save Israel and what good the bombings did, since Assad resumed his yesterday. I think you've been in upper mi too long and ticks have gotten to you from your posts lately.

ppaca wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

ppaca wrote:Meant to be a distraction from the Russian hearings. It's sad the chemical attack happened but all of a sudden some left and right have awaken after 70 years of us looking the other way when we ourselves have killed women and children in war? Talk about taking CHIP away from poor kids in our own country and some will die.

He should have kept his fucking nose out of Syria, let the Russians and Assad take care of ISIS and then their own.

If we would have stayed out of ME and just let whatever happened to Israel happen this world might have been a better place.

Naive... to be nice.

Tell me why we should save Israel and what good the bombings did, since Assad resumed his yesterday. I think you've been in upper mi too long and ticks have gotten to you from your posts lately.

"If we would have stayed out of ME and just let whatever happened to Israel happen this world might have been a better place."

This is what I was mostly talking about. But the carving up of the ME was and is an issue across the region... those conflicts continue and Israel has been relatively less chaotic. Why do you single them out? Don't they belong in that region too? Is there something you have against Jews? Nearly the entire civilized world has had their hands in the ME. You're a little late if you think that is the issue today.

PkrBum wrote:

ppaca wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

ppaca wrote:Meant to be a distraction from the Russian hearings. It's sad the chemical attack happened but all of a sudden some left and right have awaken after 70 years of us looking the other way when we ourselves have killed women and children in war? Talk about taking CHIP away from poor kids in our own country and some will die.

He should have kept his fucking nose out of Syria, let the Russians and Assad take care of ISIS and then their own.

If we would have stayed out of ME and just let whatever happened to Israel happen this world might have been a better place.

Naive... to be nice.

Tell me why we should save Israel and what good the bombings did, since Assad resumed his yesterday. I think you've been in upper mi too long and ticks have gotten to you from your posts lately.

"If we would have stayed out of ME and just let whatever happened to Israel happen this world might have been a better place."

This is what I was mostly talking about. But the carving up of the ME was and is an issue across the region... those conflicts continue and Israel has been relatively less chaotic. Why do you single them out? Don't they belong in that region too? Is there something you have against Jews? Nearly the entire civilized world has had their hands in the ME. You're a little late if you think that is the issue today.

I guess we just have a hard time understanding one another. I have nothing against Jews. I know we and many other countries have been intervening before I was born. Let Israel and their other friends take care of them if they can't handle the hostility, not us.