Where ARE you? Why the silence?
Not being one who was criticizing Trump for not "doing" anything about the atrocity in Syria right away, I'll just say that his action doesn't show me that he "has a heart". It remains to be seen what the air strike actually accomplished.
In the meantime....
Donald Trump: "AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA - IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!"
9:20 AM - 5 Sep 2013
"The only reason President Obama wants to attack Syria is to save face over his very dumb RED LINE statement. Do NOT attack Syria,fix U.S.A."
7:13 AM - 5 Sep 2013
"If Obama attacks Syria and innocent civilians are hurt and killed, he and the U.S. will look very bad!"
3:26 PM - 30 Aug 2013
Russia is sending a fleet of ships to the Mediterranean. Obama’s war in Syria has the potential to widen into a worldwide conflict.
4:45 PM - 5 Sep 2013
"What I am saying is stay out of Syria."
10:00 PM - 3 Sep 2013
Being a Vietnam Veteran? I've seen all the waste from the V.A. and the public not caring. Could have spent that money helping those who fought. We all died some inside.
You changed the subject. Let's stick to it shall we? People were bitching that he wasn't doing anything about the chemical attack and when he does, all you hear are crickets.
An airstrike is having a heart when you're taking out a military base that was used to commit war crimes against innocent civilians. Chemical weapons are banned by the entire civilized world. If you pour them on children you need to be punished. Your comment is beside the point. Perhaps we should allow Assad to ruthlessly, PURPOSELY, murder tiny children in a way that makes them suffer as much as possible?
He has been wrecking havoc and murdering his OWN people in horrible and painful ways for years. Innocent, helpless, hungry, young and old.
This knee jerk reaction just proves how ill informed and ill prepared trump is.
This strike did very little to hurt assad.
For crying out loud, he was warned!
Taking out 20% of his nation's Air Force is "very little?"
That is an approximation.
I am certain russia will fill the void
On the contrary. The strike was well planned and executed. A shot across the bow, if you will. Letting Assad know we don't like what he did. Assad crossed the line by using banned weapons. He crossed the line a couple times in 2013 when Obama 'warned' Assad, and then did nothing to back up his warning. Now, Assad and the rest of the world knows the president is serious.
Well, at least he did something other than make a speech about it. Who knows what will happen now.
A heart. Pfft
His missle strike was for the pupose of show and attention diversion. I have spoken of this at least three times.
The money that was wasted on a prewarned attack would be better spent protecting refugees.
Hard not to think about it. He is flying blind, and we are in the passenger compartment
I bet he signed the order in a stylish pair of boots.
And gave the pen to xi
Well, at least Obama didn't 'waste' any money with all his embarrassing red lines in the sand he drew.
If we are going to do anything for refugees, it would be to make a safe place for them in their own country until they can go home.
80 million would go a long way towards that.
Obama wanted to go after assad. He was rebuffed and advised against it
Rebuffed by who?
Not our problem.
Agree, so why are so many of them in this country is my question.
Because as a civilized country we are supposed to human.
I know that is hard for you to understand
Actually, Carla, no, that's not hard for me to understand at all. In fact, it's kind of insulting for you to think I don't understand human needs of safety, love, protection, food, water, etc.
The 'refugees' would be better off in a safe area to live in their own country, with people they know, their familiar surroundings than to be uprooted and moved a half world away. Wouldn't you rather be in a familiar setting where you knew you were safe than to be completely uprooted?
But.....safe zones havent, as of yet, seemed to be an option. For those that are fleeing, and have had to flee, welcoming them is the least we can do.
To alienate those in such dire need, is not what i see as humanitarian.
Maybe the safe zones haven't worked because they have really been tried, or well planned. If we are to bring them into this country, then seriously vetting them needs to be done. As for me, I think Coptics, Syrian Christians, etc coming from a Muslim country should be the very first ones allowed in, but sadly, that has NOT been the case. They have been slaughtered/tortured by the thousands, and no one really seems to care about them.
Unfortunately, the muslims are being slaughtered, too. The syrians already wait up to 2 years. Being vetted.
Yes, and the ones doing the slaughtering/torturing I do not want in this country.
Maybe some are waiting up to 2 years, but the past admin wasn't doing enough vetting. Can't speak about this one since I don't know. I know the whole process is overwhelming - that's another reason I think a safe zone in their own country would be a much better solution to the problem.
I am sorry if i insulted you. It was unintentional..
Watching people suffer as they are produces a gut reaction in me.
I cannot imagine the horrors they live each day. We should all count ouselves very fortunate. As we are all here and safe by accident of birth.
With the leftist positions such as yours, if we don't warn our targets - we're barbarians. Besides, the idea wasn't to kill as much as damage.
Oh Crap, I was wondering who what going to try and spin his very impulsive act.
First of all, we don't want to get involved in another 'Iraq'
Secondly, his acting because of images on the TV, is very alarming.
Thirdly, the strike did nothing. The Russians were notified before hand, and they in turn, notified the Syrians.
I would suspect "his heart" had more to do with taking the focus off Russia than anything else.
LOL! I know! I was suspecting a post on Friday night.
Picked a very poor idol
Exactly. We have set a very low bar in this country.
I know, you were all about Obama for 8 years.
Just because the fucking guy did something that I think is good doesn't mean I worship him. Are you guys done slamming me yet? The entire post is filled with Liberals and a couple of Libertarians. No conservative here to argue for the more popular opinion which is that the strike had to be. Any other rude things you'd like to say about me?
Hello! I'm still here!
The missile strike was bull. He warned them ahead of time and they airfield was back in use 48 hours later. It was a publicity stunt.
Personally I've never been against there being some kind of military action against the Assad regime...going back years ago when he first started using chemical weapons on his own people. I think he should have done it with congressional approval though.
But at the same time...I can almost see why he didn't bother when you have politicians supporting the current airstrike...that 4 years ago when the same exact thing happened in Syria and Obama lobbied for airstrikes were completely against them. The ole Partisan Switcheroo.
I can't speak to that perspective, but as someone who supported Trump from the beginning, I hate his decision to bomb Syria, I think it was a colossal mistake.
First off, one day isn't enough time to do any kind of proper investigation to find out who was behind the gas attack, so his assertion that it was Syrian forces lacks credibility. I don't believe for a moment that it was Assad.
Secondly, the people who voted for him wanted a more measured approach to foreign policy and his response to this situation is the direct opposite of that. It's extremely provocative and dangerous, and could easily lead to a larger conflict, possibly even WW3.
When the neocons, the mainstream media, the Democrats and ISIS all agree on something, you can reliably assume it's a load of BS.
That's not to say I'm now against Trump, but I sharply disagree with that decision. I have the overwhelming sense that It will come back to bite him.
Maze, you and I rarely agree when it comes to politics, but I have to agree with you on this issue. I think this is less a matter of Trump being horrified that children and other innocents were gassed than showing that he is not the same wuss he claimed Obama was. If I were going to spend $60 million dollars on missiles to Syria, I'd want to get more bang for my buck than just destroying an ammo dump, some antique planes and a few port-a-potties. Within hours, that airfield was up and running and Assad was dropping barrel bombs on his own people.
Assad is fighting ISIS, not "his own people." When cities are recaptured from ISIS "rebels" by Syrian forces, people go home and start trying to put their lives back together.
Thousands of people who fled Syria's 'capital of the revolution' two years ago returned today to see the apocalyptic destruction wreaked on their city.
Snapping photographs on their phones, the displaced first began wandering nervously down paths carved from rubble yesterday in the old quarters of Homs, where thousands died in the ultimately failed battle by rebels against the troops of President Bashar al-Assad.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news...#ixzz4e0PqNdLz
Here's what one street in Homs looked like under Assad, before ISIS rebels captured it.
Here's what it looked like after it was recaptured by Syrian forces and "Assad's people" were able to return.
And here's a picture of one of the city's 11 Christian churches after the ISIS "rebels" were kicked out of Homs. The Syrian government allows Christians to freely practice their faith.
And what are the goals of the "rebels"?
[CNN 2015] ISIS makes no secret of its ultimate ambition: A global caliphate secured through a global war. To that end it speaks of "remaining and expanding" its existing hold over much of Iraq and Syria. It aims to replace existing, man-made borders, to overcome what it sees as the Shiite "crescent" that has emerged across the Middle East, to take its war -- Islam's war -- to Europe and America, and ultimately to lead Muslims toward an apocalyptic battle against the "disbelievers."
There are 2 options in Syria: ISIS or the Syrian government. I know which I'd prefer if I was living there, and it's not ISIS.
ISIS is the one dropping barrel bombs? I don't think so.
ISIS are the psychopathic "rebels" trying to capture Syria by force. What do you think would happen if a "rebel group" tried to violently conquer the US and install an Islamic caliphate? Do you think the government would hesitate to do whatever it needed to to stop them?
I would like to think that even if that were the case, the U.S. would not drop barrel bombs or use chemical weapons against innocent people.
I'm with you on that one. No way would we do that. It's unbelievable that someone would even suggest it.
I agree. I'm not a very good historian, but I'd be willing to bet that Assad and his father before him were killing their own people before there was ISIS. That's what despots do - they kill their own.
Don't be so naive.
Civilians, Including Children, Killed in U.S. Raid on Al Qaeda in Yemen, Military Says
Obama claims US drones strikes have killed up to 116 civilians [Friday 1 July 2016]
More than 200 civilians killed in suspected U.S. airstrike in Iraq
Under Trump, U.S. Military Has Allegedly Killed Over 1,000 Civilians in Iraq, Syria in March
I'm not at all naive. There's a difference in my mind to the collateral damages in war than in a head of state deliberately going after his own people.
Think for yourself. If Assad was deliberately going after his own people, they'd all be dead by now. But long before that, his military would revolt, because remember, they are Syrians too, those civilians are their neighbors, friends and family.
So was the Gestapo.
Maze - Assad is responsible for over 100,000 dead Syrians. They estimate that he has murdered 11.5% of his population.
I think your assumptions about the good nature of Assad and his military are in need of adjustment.
The US killed at least 173,000 Iraqi civilians, should I assume they did it intentionally? No? Well if the US deserves the benefit of the doubt when it comes to killing Iraqi civilians in a somewhat dubious war, doesn't Syria deserve the benefit of the doubt when it comes to killing Syrian citizens when fighting for their nation's survival against an invasion by jihadis?
Maze, the photo below shows an American soldier and 5 Iraqi citizens. One of these six people is also a radical Islamic terrorist. You've got lots of answers it seems. Which one is the radical Islamic terrorist? (Sorry, forgot the photo - and I'm unable to post it now. The point was that you can't tell the difference between friend and enemy)
Civilian casualties are an unfortunate cost of war. Especially so when the enemy chooses to hide among them.
A dubious war? How so?
You understand that sarin gas has been internationally banned. Slaughtering ones own citizens I guess is acceptable by you and the international community, but everyone else draws the line at chemical weapons.
Chemical weapons are the pedophilia of warfare, it's the ultimate dirt. For the Syrian government to use them when they're winning, and when the US administration had backed off calling for Assad's removal defies logic. For "rebel" forces to use them and blame them on Syrian forces makes a lot more sense.
The attack had negligible military significance, but it had PROFOUND political significance. Therefore I assume it was a political move, not a military one, and clearly the beneficiary was not Assad, it was the "rebels".
God gifted us with logic for a reason Budwick, don't just blindly accept what the war mongers want you to think, think for yourself.
I wasn't aware that rebel forces had jet aircraft at their disposal to drop those banned chemicals onto the Syrians.
There was an airstrike and there was a gas attack, that doesn't necessarily mean the airstrike was the cause of the gas attack.
We don't target civilians but in war there are civilian casualties. The difference is that the civilians in the chemical attack were targeted. CHEMICAL weapons are against the Geneva Convention, signed by Syria. If we allow chemicals to be used, why not nukes next? We might as well forget all of the rules of war and anything goes.
So when the US kills civilians in war it's accidental, but when Syria kills civilians in war it's deliberate? Please.
Besides, I don't believe Syria used chemical weapons. The supposed gas attack was during a strike on a ISIS weapons facility, do the math. Also, it was most likely chlorine gas, not sarin, as evidenced by the fact that pictures show medical staff treating victims without gloves, and sarin is deadly by skin contact.
Chlorine gas is very easy to make, you probably have the ingredients in your home. Ever mixed bleach and ammonia? I have when I was a kid, it makes chlorine gas. If it's that easy to make it accidentally, how easy is it to make it deliberately? Pretty easy, I'd guess. So the threshold for who can make chlorine gas is incredibly low, well within the scope of terrorists.
There are people who want Assad out, that incident plays directly into their hands as evidenced by their over the top response to it. I'm no fan of Assad, but he's a point of stability in that region, it would be foolish to oust him based on trumped up nonsense.
You wrote - "So when the US kills civilians in war it's accidental, but when Syria kills civilians in war it's deliberate? Please."
I'm surprised and disappointed.
I'm surprised at your lack of faith in USA military intentions, and disappointed to see you building Syrian protective stories out of supposition.
The US has killed a LOT of civilians over the years, but I assume it isn't any more intentional when they do it than when Syria does it. Even considering the US is typically killing someone else's citizens, not its own.
When there's a war, civilians end up getting killed. I don't like it, but it's the nature of war. I don't blame the US for doing it intentionally when they do it unless there's compelling evidence to support it (as with the case of US contractors shooting Iraqi civilians for sport, which was proven by their own videos of it) and I don't assume Syria does it intentionally without compelling evidence to support it, and the evidence offered so far is not at all compelling.
It was ludicrous to assume that Assad was responsible given that just days before both Haley and Tillerson publicly stated that ousting Assad was no longer a priority. Assad may be many things, but he is not stupid.
Our government, other western governments, and the press are far too quick to assign blame without evidence. The public wants instant gratification and so is all to eager to accept that what we are being told is the truth. That just boggles my mind. Do y'all trust the government without question on everything? Why or why not? How about the press? It amazes me that people think they can tell us unequivocally and without doubt who is responsible for things occurring halfway around the world, in a war zone, where civil war has been ongoing for six years, with multiple parties involved in the fighting that have names and alliances that are subject to change and who are backed by one or more of several nations...in short, it's a clusterfuck over there. Yet you accept the blame immediately being placed on Assad.
He was immediately blamed in 2013, too. There were later reports that he wasn't responsible, you know...after it was actually investigated. While western governments and MSM won't actually admit that, it is glaring in it's absence in a recent NYT's article listing the atrocities Assad has been accused of.
The New York Times, which has never heard an allegation against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad that it hasn’t immediately believed, has compiled a list of his alleged atrocities with a surprising omission: the Aug. 21, 2013 sarin gas attack outside Damascus.
(Link to the NYT's article at link.)
So who do you think gasses the innocents then, if not Syria and Assad? Nobody? You think Trump did it? Somebody did; that's undeniable.
Serious questions, Jerry: Why do you so readily accept the government's and MSM's almost immediate assertions that it was Assad? Are you always so trusting of them? If this can be known without doubt and without investigation, why can't we get to the bottom of Bengazi or Russian involvement in the election or the crime committed locally last night immediately, too? Qui bono?
Here is something you might find interesting. It's a photograph taken at the bombed airbase. The airbase from which Assad launched his gas attack on his civilians. Assad is the guy that said he he destroyed all his outlawed chemical weapons. And what do you know? Here's a photo of the distinctive containers the unmixed chemicals are delivered in - stored right there on Assad's military air base.
So, the government lies to you, Bud? Per McMaster:
“There were measures put in place to avoid hitting what we believe is a storage of sarin gas there –so that would not be ignited and cause a hazard to civilians or anyone else.”
And why, pray tell, isn't that picture plastered all over the MSM? Why was it released by Russian media outlets, rather than Fox News? Did you look closely at it? Those munitions containers, haphazardly piled outside a damaged hanger, with holes in them...released by Russian news outlets, not covered by our MSM must be sarin containers...despite McMaster's assurances...uh huh.
McMaster also said - "We have a very high level of confidence that the attacks were carried out by aircraft under the direction of the Bashar al-Assad regime.
Those containers don't appear to have been hit by Tomahawk Missiles to me.
Why would the MSM suddenly publish anything that portrays Trump favorably?
You can see holes in the containers?
Haphazard stacking - Well haphazard isn't typical for the military. At least not the US military - I can't speak for Syrian military - but I can imagine a scenario in which valuable / dangerous containers might be hastily moved and neatness not made a high priority.
This same style container is used to store chemicals that make sarin gas. It wouldn't be actual sarin gas anyway. The chemicals are combined just before deployment.
You are arguing in circles.
Point being he clearly indicated knowledge of where chemicals would be stored and that they wouldn't be targeted, yet that hanger was damaged.
Actually the MSM was quite favorable to Trump regarding the attack on Syria. If those were indeed sarin containers, not only would the picture be all over the news here, but Trump would be Tweeting it, too.
Yes, I can. And with holes in the containers, there would be danger of accidental mixing of the two components. Neatness was not the point, Bud, safety is. Those moving the containers would be cognizant of what they were moving and tend to handle chemical weapons a bit more carefully.
That doesn't mean that style of container is limited to sarin gas.
No, I am not.
Boz, I know these missiles are very accurate. And, I hope our intelligence as to where the chemicals were stored were also accurate. You are presenting McMasters comments as accurate as well. So, why are you concluding that this is a hoax of some kind?
What I am concluding, Bud, is that those particular containers do not contain the ingredients for sarin...your conclusion says they do, and that indicates that the government lied about not targeting stashes of chemical weapons. You cannot have it both ways. Either the gov has precise weapons...and did not hit areas where chemical weapons were stored, or they did, which might explain those photos. Since no injuries were sustained from chemical weapons from the attack, however, I can only conclude that those containers do not contain the makings of sarin gas.
Well, then you are concluding with insufficient evidence.
Whether that particular hangar was specifically targeted - we don't know.
Whether the containers were moved there after our intelligence was gathered - we don't know.
My conclusion is that the containers are the same unique type that sarin chemicals are stored in - period.
As accurate as the missiles are, they're not infallible. We don't even know if those containers were hit - they're simply there.
Unless the Syrians are exceptionally stupid, they would store all the necessary components of sarin in a single place. Exposure to unmixed chemicals would not be expected to yield the same results as mixed chemicals.
You are too quick to disavow our country Boz. They really are not obligated to tell you every tactical details of missions you know.
"Well, then you are concluding with insufficient evidence."
As are you, Bud.
The point is, those containers are not unique to sarin.
I do not expect the government to share everything regarding military or diplomatic strategy. Nor am I too quick to "disavow" our country...unlike you, Bud, I am honest about its failures, though.
Except, you are counting this strike, that you admit you know little about - a failure.
I never even commented on whether it was a success or failure, Bud. I said I was honest about our government's failures, and that was not limited to this one strike. The strike itself could be very successful at what it was intended to accomplish, that does not mean what we were told as the reason for it was based upon fact.
I can't believe you people; you're nuts. So filled with hatred that you can never get past it. You're sad.
What is sad, jerry, is you buying in to all of this.
Your mr trump is a narcissist who hasnt a clue or a policy.
His administration will go down as the biggest debacle in history.
That is, if we have a history
That's exactly what the previous administration was.
I know, Obama was working against the USA.
Trump is working for!
He sure gets a lot of work done for having no policies or clues.
I never thought he should do anything. He promised to help americans not others. Bombing them probably just made more people miserable, and how did it help Americans?
He just Tomahawked his way into my heart ;)