It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
tennmike wrote: »
:spittingcoffee: Which makes me reiterate the need for a sarcasm font. Something like Comic Sans type for sarcasm posts for pointing out sarcasm to keep panties unwadded?
Wambli Ska wrote: »
Funny no one remembers all the mystery trucks that left Iraq and went to Syria right before our invasion.
Teach wrote: »
Not to mention the documented evidence of the Boeing 747 airliners with all the seats removed that flew from Iraq to Syria (repeatedly) with "humanitarian aid" after an "earthquake", wasn't it?
knitepoet wrote: »
Earl, I agree with you as to not being sure it was the correct move or not.
With that said, Trump just showed the world he's not O'wimpy, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
breamfisher wrote: »
Agreed on showing the world he's not like Obama: I think that making a line in the sand and not enforcing it was a HUGE mistake.As far as Syria goes, it's like a piece of poop: there's no clean end.
coolgunguy wrote: »
Meh. Those that get it don't need to be told. Those that don't, well.....
North Forest wrote: »
Here we go........https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1mlCPMYtPk
BAMAAK wrote: »
So what would be the best solution for you as European?
Wambli Ska wrote: »
Funny no one remembers all the mystery trucks that left Iraq and went to Syria right before our invasion. I guess Syria has no WMDs either... :uhm:
HappySquid wrote: »
Bamaak, that whole region has a 20+ ages history of tribal wars over and over again. There is simply nothing that will keep them from killing each other. The biggest problem in this communications age is that there will always be some "news-agency" communicating the next tragedy to us, then someone feels compelled to help and jump in, to no avail. There is no sensible way to make them live together in peace over there
tubabucknut wrote: »
What was the threat to our national security again? What happened to we will concentrate on the USA, and Syria is not an American problem? If we attacked because of human tragedy, why have we not launched strikes in Darfur, Burma, South Sudan, Venezuela, etc. what good comes from destabilizing the Assad regime? Did we learn nothing from Iraq, Tunisia, Egypt, etc?
That attack cost us $75,000,000 in missles alone. So let me get this right. Trump made a statement to the Chinese by launching the attack while they dined together? Did he ask for the loan to pay for the attack at the same time, or is he going ask for the money tomorrow. Sabre rattling looses some of it's effect when you have to borrow money, from the one you want to rattle your saber at, so that you can rattle your saber at them.
Now the two school yard baddies get to bow up at each other on the world stage. Neither will back down because they will lose face. Nope nothing bad can come from this at all.
All you supporters should listen to Rand Paul's explanation of the war powers act. You might learn something. I did. Trump had no authority to launch this attack. The President's authority to unilaterally use force is only in the face of imminent threat. Where was that threat.
This was a bad Idea when Obama considered it, and it is a bad idea now.
HappySquid wrote: »
Bamaak, that whole region has a 20+ ages history of tribal wars over and over again. There is simply nothing that will keep them from killing each other. The biggest problem in this communications age is that there will always be some "news-agency" communicating the next tragedy to us, then someone feels compelled to help and jump in, to no avail. There is no sensible way to make them live together in peace over there :
tennmike wrote: »
History is a son of an unwed mother. VN is a good example. Kennedy sent in 'advisers'. Then he was assassinated and LBJ used the second attack, lets say 'alleged attack', on the USS Maddox and the USS Turner Joy to get the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution passed in Congress, and then LBJ really got things rolling. Up until now, that was our longest undeclared war. Congress porked Fido back then, and they've done it repeatedly since. They are gutless when it comes to doing their design function in that respect. They could stop this mess if they wanted to, but they're mostly like a bunch of little scolded puppies lying on their backs and peeing on their bellies when it comes to declaring war or saying 'NO!' and making it stick.
We have troops in Syria already. For good or ill, they are there and in harms way. They need to be protected; wouldn't be outside the realm of possibility for Assad to target them with some Sarin or other WMD gas. The missile attack was a warning not to target our troops with that stuff, if nothing else.
And that cruise missile attack was a "KNOCK IT OFF WITH THE WMD!" message. Kill all they want with conventional means, but no more WMD attacks. As to the missiles expended, they have a shelf life just like meat in the supermarket. If not expended, they have to be removed, refurbished, and all the electronics tested to ensure they will fire before being put back in stock. Back in stock: civilian speak for going back to the magazines for future deployment. Really old ones have the warheads removed and are used in war games for what is called telemetry shoots for training purposes and to hit targets. And for the record, the life of one military member is worth all the cruise missiles in inventory. We can make more missiles to replace the ones expended; we cannot replace a life; differing opinions on this, but that's MY opinion and I'm sticking to it.
War powers act: Congress has abdicated on that act so many times it is as useless as teats on a boar hog. Congress hasn't had the intestinal fortitude to do their required function in that respect since WWII, and only because we were attacked. If Japan hadn't attacked and Germany hadn't declared war on us then WWII would have been a lot different. Congress would not have declared war because they were pretty much isolationist.
Regarding the saber rattling thing, some of us were in the service during VN and later during the Cold War, and grew up during the Cold War. We aren't anywhere near that level of saber rattling, and the Russian fleet isn't anywhere near what it was in the Med or the Atlantic that it was back then. And Russia isn't stupid; they aren't likely, at all, to go to war with us over Syria. They're making money hand over fist in Syria since Syria is their new 'client state' much like Egypt was back in the '60s and '70s.
As to the indigenous players over there, they've been fighting since the time all they had was rocks to bash each others brains out with, and will continue to do so. The Muslim population is made up of a bucketful of different sects and they all hate each other. Alliances are fluid in that they will ally themselves against a common enemy, and once that enemy is defeated they go back to fighting each other. Assad's Alawite sect is a minority in Syria, and he has ruled with a dictator's iron fist. Thus the civil war. Lots of different player sects involved, and ISIS is foaming at the mouth to come out on top for their setting up the caliphate. If we are going to be there fighting anybody, then it should be ISIS and no one else. Let the others kill each other by the gobs and bunches; we should be concentrating on ISIS, and ISIS alone if we are going to be there.
centermass556 wrote: »
Putin' response was on the money. The United States just conducted an air strike on a sovereign nation.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
tubabucknut wrote: »
Yep. And whether or not we declared war legally, we just conducted an act of war on an nation that hasn't done a damn thing to us. They didn't even threaten to.
alphasigmookie wrote: »
After a bit of time thinking about this here's where I come down on it...
This strike was largely a symbolic action. We struck an airforce base without doing any serious permanent damage. We warned the Russians (which means we also warned the Syrians) and didn't damage the runway or any operational aircraft. The military value of the strike was nill.
The political value however was high. After Obama balked the first time chems were used we needed to send a more clear message that we can and will do something to nations that use banned weapons, even if this was only really a warning shot. The other political factor is that it sets us nominally against the Russians which is good for Trump in that it at least marginally goes against the prevailing Russian collusion narrative. It also lets Trump look tough, at least in comparison to Obama, which isn't saying much.
Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
Jayhawker wrote: »
Who are you and what have you done with alpha?
Bigslug wrote: »
Well. . .in kind of a long, drawn-out way, we have Adolph Hitler to thank in part for drawing the line on WMD's. Bad as he was, and bad as WWII was, his WWI experience kept even HIM from breaking out the chemical weapons on the battlefield. It's been an internationally recognized thing since 1918 that breaking out the chems is a road we shouldn't go down again, and THAT'S the issue here. If Assad was killing his people with machetes, bullets, or plastic sporks, I expect the Tomahawks would still be in their tubes.
Temporary Price Reduction
Give a Gift
PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE
Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.