Politics aside do folks on this board support our action in Syria?
- Thread starter cawacko
- Start date
Element-22-Cat
Where is E-man?
I don't like it because it is reactionary and not part of a cohesive plan. It's a bomb now and then what? We'll see?
If it was going to cause many very bad things before, how are those going to be addressed?
I like it in that it could have been much more reactive (worse).
Trump gets to look tough. McCain and Graham have a militaristic orgasm.
world leaders and Congress get to say "we're doing something in Syria." everybody gets a feel good photo-op
Does any of this matter one way or the other?? is the question...*meh* not really.
I don't think it even weakens Assad-he's still got the Russian AF
Trump gets to look tough. McCain and Graham have a militaristic orgasm.
world leaders and Congress get to say "we're doing something in Syria." everybody gets a feel good photo-op
Does any of this matter one way or the other?? is the question...*meh* not really.
I don't think it even weakens Assad-he's still got the Russian AF
I am truly torn, because even though it was a strike on the facility that launched the attack, what now? What is Trump's message to Assad?
What next?
What next?
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
He should have done what Hillary Clinton told him to do just hours before his attack .. BOMB THE AIRFIELDS.
That would keep ASSAD from any similar airborne gas attack.
That would have been far more strategic and would have sent a better message.
Beyond that, like Clinton, he would have needed congressional approval.
War can't be based on one person supposedly changing their mind.
That would keep ASSAD from any similar airborne gas attack.
That would have been far more strategic and would have sent a better message.
Beyond that, like Clinton, he would have needed congressional approval.
War can't be based on one person supposedly changing their mind.
Last edited:
This is where I'm at. It depends a lot on what follows as to how I feel about the strike. I am not for bringing those folks wholesale over here but I would love to see something done over there to help them.
So people died, remember that.
That would also have grounded Russian air-without Russian air Assad is weak -he was close to falling last year before Russia came in,
If Assad falls -who replaces him? either AQ related types like al-Nusra, or some Shi'a/Russian backed faction.
As usual Clinton's bloodthirst was a bridge too far..this was a "proportional response" about the least bad option
as opposed to what?
what is it now? 300k+ DEAD and millions and millions displaced?at least that many
He likes it.
ehh. Life has a different value in the middle east than in the US. They strap bombs on to children over there and make them go kabluwey! If they dont care why should we?
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Good point .. it would have grounded Russian air as well .. but at this point, getting rid of Assad should be the goal. If he's using gas, who will replace him is the next question, not the first one.
Clinton made the right call.
Because, life has a different value in the US. Maybe you should move to the middle east if you don't want to be bothered by those who care. According to you, you will fit in better there.
I value our lives a lot because we value them a lot. I give the same consideration to the middle east.