Jump to content

Welcome to our forums!

Sign In or Register to gain full access to our forums. By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

Photo

U.S Launches Airstrikes in Syria


  • Please log in to reply
127 replies to this topic

#1 NChiefsCorner

NChiefsCorner

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,669 posts
  • LocationLiberty, Missouri

Posted 07 April 2017 - 01:18 AM

Trump is taking out the chemical weapons site. ;)

 

Reports of at least 43 tomahawk missiles



#2 Semo

Semo

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,306 posts

Posted 07 April 2017 - 02:05 AM

Great.

#3 oldtimer

oldtimer

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,349 posts

Posted 07 April 2017 - 02:11 AM

POOT said " that'll make an impression"  I about choked on my drink


  • MAUI and West like this

#4 mex

mex

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,137 posts

Posted 07 April 2017 - 02:12 AM

so they're taking out assad

 

who will take over when he's gone?



#5 Chiefs Convert

Chiefs Convert

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 395 posts

Posted 07 April 2017 - 02:33 AM

I'm fine with a confirmed, controlled strike against chemical munitions. I'm not fine with teasing a bear.

#6 wilkie

wilkie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,263 posts
  • LocationShagri La

Posted 07 April 2017 - 02:54 AM

I salute the humanitarian effort. We have ability to do something. It is a bold move. I pray there is little blowback.

#7 jetlord

jetlord

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,760 posts

Posted 07 April 2017 - 04:02 AM

Will it really have any effect?  The Russians were warned in advance, which makes sense, and I'm sure the Russians warned the Syrians so how much did it really cost Assad?  At the same time, it seems like the only response the US could make without forcing Russia to react.  To do nothing would be just like Obama which would only embolden Assad to kill more.  Trump owns Syrian policy now and it will be interesting to see how far he's willing to go.



#8 oldtimer

oldtimer

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,349 posts

Posted 07 April 2017 - 12:21 PM

this strike as a lot of sub plots 2 biggies being

 

 Shows the American people that Trump is willing to strike at a Russian friend so is not a Putin puppet as some might suggest

 

After some Big Talk about dealing with North Korea and having their Guardian China visiting the US it shows Trump just is not  bellowing like an old cow and actually willing and able to  back up his talk.

 

 I think it put the world on notice he's no Obama as if there should of been any doubt.

 

the thing that worried me is that Trump's statement seemed rushed and he seemed visibly pissed off..not really what I wanted to see by a CIC


  • West likes this

#9 wilkie

wilkie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,263 posts
  • LocationShagri La

Posted 07 April 2017 - 12:41 PM

I have to wonder if  a retaliatory response so quickly was necessary.   Most would agree I think that what we did is an act of war.   Not to say that war is being declared but it was a provocation.    It was not necessary that we tender an immediate answer.   American interests were not threatened.   Accordingly,  should not this have been debated in Congress before the action was commenced?   I am not in favor of giving our presidents unilateral power to place America in harms way without the consent of Congress.   In the event of a national emergency,   I am in favor of temporary authority followed by Congressional approval.   This however was not a national emergency.  While I applaud the action and hope that it garnishes respect for American policy,   nonetheless this follows a long line of executive actions by other presidents who put us at risk.  Truman did this in Korea.  LBJ did this in Vietnam.    I would like to think that our elected officials were on board before we take provocative actions.

 

Now we have to wait and see what the other side does.



#10 oldtimer

oldtimer

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,349 posts

Posted 07 April 2017 - 12:57 PM

Russian agave US the nod/ nudge/wink approval. their response is more than obvious that  they agree  the Syrian action was too much.

 

 your talking out both sides of your mouth Wilkie.. you approve but you want a debate about it..well God Damn lets give the Syrians time to  move all their planes and vacate the base.. some military man you are.

 

 Trump didn't put any of our soldiers in harms way and as C.I.C he has this authority and  those who are yapping that he didn't just like to hear themselves  yap.


  • mex likes this

#11 mex

mex

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,137 posts

Posted 07 April 2017 - 01:15 PM

Like jet I wonder about the ultimate affect of this. On one hand, should we tolerate the use of chem weps... I have to agree something needed to be done, and I applaud the admin for not risking our young men and women in another shithole pile of rubble to sort out who gets to run it.

 

On the other hand, there is no clear ally in this war. When this is the case, we lose either way, so why interfere?



#12 oldtimer

oldtimer

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,349 posts

Posted 07 April 2017 - 01:31 PM

I was watching CBS this morning and even their  guest said that in a few more guarded words that this action showed leadership and the response from out Allies  in support of the action showed that  that the US can be depended on and will lead from the front.

 

 Probably not the way we'd liked that message to be presented as evidence but effective non the less.

 

t goes without saying that even our Allies were worried  about any real meaningful support from the US when push came to shove. Trump is giving out some tough love. He says for them to Pay up and defend yourself yet when its time to do something only the US  can do....we'll do it. I'm ok with that.

 

 I dont see any long term consequences , Israel has done this type of thing countless times  and there is outrage but when the dust settles and everyone is done with the posturing Israel is non for the worse....same here... in my opinion.


  • kcchief4lif, KCTech, BroncoStud and 1 other like this

#13 mex

mex

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,137 posts

Posted 07 April 2017 - 01:34 PM

well said OT



#14 jetlord

jetlord

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,760 posts

Posted 07 April 2017 - 03:03 PM

I have to wonder if  a retaliatory response so quickly was necessary.   Most would agree I think that what we did is an act of war.   Not to say that war is being declared but it was a provocation.    It was not necessary that we tender an immediate answer.   American interests were not threatened.   Accordingly,  should not this have been debated in Congress before the action was commenced?   I am not in favor of giving our presidents unilateral power to place America in harms way without the consent of Congress.   In the event of a national emergency,   I am in favor of temporary authority followed by Congressional approval.   This however was not a national emergency.  While I applaud the action and hope that it garnishes respect for American policy,   nonetheless this follows a long line of executive actions by other presidents who put us at risk.  Truman did this in Korea.  LBJ did this in Vietnam.    I would like to think that our elected officials were on board before we take provocative actions.

 

Now we have to wait and see what the other side does.

So what do you want?  Does the world have the right to attack a country who's leader is committing genocide against civilian children?  Should Hilter have been taken out in 1943 if we had the ability?  It's a tough question.  What I do think is that if Trump was going to hit Syria, it had to be immediate.  Warning the Russians was probably a good move.  We don't need to be killing their military advisors if there's another choice.  Consulting congress is a sure fire way to do nothing.  The debates would have been endless and political without ever reaching concensus.  Obama drew his infamous red line and then turned the problem over to congress when Assad used chem weapons and nothing happened.  I understand you sensitivity about Vietnam, but this isn't the same thing.  So far, I back what Trump did and expect the blowback to be nothing long term.  There's a chance that Assad was testing Trump and got his answer.  There's a better chance that Putin will tell Assad to never do that again.  JMHO



#15 West

West

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,044 posts

Posted 07 April 2017 - 03:35 PM

care was taken NOT to hit the chemical weapons....

 

care was taken not to hit Russian helicopters.

 

strike was planned for 2 days

 

crews on both destroyers trained for 2 days

 

w



#16 wilkie

wilkie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,263 posts
  • LocationShagri La

Posted 07 April 2017 - 04:31 PM

Russian agave US the nod/ nudge/wink approval. their response is more than obvious that  they agree  the Syrian action was too much.
 
 your talking out both sides of your mouth Wilkie.. you approve but you want a debate about it..well God Damn lets give the Syrians time to  move all their planes and vacate the base.. some military man you are.
 
 Trump didn't put any of our soldiers in harms way and as C.I.C he has this authority and  those who are yapping that he didn't just like to hear themselves  yap.

As long as this was in our national security you wont hear any word for me. The question is was this within our national security? What happens next?
  • West likes this

#17 West

West

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,044 posts

Posted 07 April 2017 - 04:36 PM

agree Wilks....

 

Its a a triangulation game.

 

What will Russia do?

 

So far they disciplined the "Syria Coordination secure Phone Line".

 

time will tell.

 

w



#18 Semo

Semo

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,306 posts

Posted 07 April 2017 - 04:38 PM

As long as this was in our national security you wont hear any word for me. The question is was this within our national security? What happens next?


Syria's actions were not a direct threat to us. The problem is, we have stuck our nose in so many conflicts around the world historically, that now the world expects it.

It is what it is, I guess.

#19 Chiefsfan1963

Chiefsfan1963

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,226 posts

Posted 07 April 2017 - 05:09 PM

On the other hand, there is no clear ally in this war.

We are helping to protect Israel, Turkey, Jordan and the GCC Countries all whom are our "allies" in the region. Unlike with Hussein, now the folks over there understand we wont let politics get in the way of doing the right thing.

Syria is bot only a threat to their own people but to those around them. If you will use chemical weapons on your own people you won't think twice about using them on others.

The right amount of force was used and against the right type of target.

#20 oldtimer

oldtimer

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,349 posts

Posted 07 April 2017 - 06:55 PM

I think 63 brings up a good point. King Abdullah was just in Washington around the time this Chemical attack happened. He is just as much a friend as Israel. Saudi's applauded this move. I echo 63's thoughts that if Sryia is willing to use them on his own people whats stopping him from using it on other nations.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users