1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Chemical attack in Syria

Discussion in 'Middle Eastern Politics' started by Aus22, Apr 6, 2017.

  1. Old_Trapper70

    Old_Trapper70 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,636
    Likes Received:
    173
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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.
     
    Openmind likes this.
  2. grumpy

    grumpy Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2016
    Messages:
    646
    Likes Received:
    122
    Trophy Points:
    43
    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..
     
  3. grumpy

    grumpy Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2016
    Messages:
    646
    Likes Received:
    122
    Trophy Points:
    43
    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..
     
  4. Openmind

    Openmind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2011
    Messages:
    3,719
    Likes Received:
    80
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Currently Belgium
    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
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2017
  5. Aus22

    Aus22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2008
    Messages:
    1,614
    Likes Received:
    113
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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.
     
  6. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    16,489
    Likes Received:
    1,324
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sec 9 Row J Seat 1 @ VCU home games
    Kim would need to execute an act of war imo
    And I don't think Kim is that stupid.
     
  7. Old_Trapper70

    Old_Trapper70 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,636
    Likes Received:
    173
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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
     
  8. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,133
    Likes Received:
    206
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    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!
     
  9. Old_Trapper70

    Old_Trapper70 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,636
    Likes Received:
    173
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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.
     
  10. grumpy

    grumpy Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2016
    Messages:
    646
    Likes Received:
    122
    Trophy Points:
    43
    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.
     
  11. grumpy

    grumpy Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2016
    Messages:
    646
    Likes Received:
    122
    Trophy Points:
    43
    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/
     
  12. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    16,489
    Likes Received:
    1,324
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sec 9 Row J Seat 1 @ VCU home games
    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.
     
    grumpy likes this.
  13. Aus22

    Aus22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2008
    Messages:
    1,614
    Likes Received:
    113
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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
     
  14. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,133
    Likes Received:
    206
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    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?
    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?
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2017
  15. Old_Trapper70

    Old_Trapper70 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,636
    Likes Received:
    173
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Obama asked, your Repugnant one refused to act. Trump has never asked.
     
    Openmind likes this.
Loading...

Share This Page