rickyp wrote:Fate

But, Trump is Putin's puppet! Collusion!
Yeah, sure, wait on those blackmail tapes . .

.
Up to 3 days ago Trump was pretty much playing along with Russia...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/30/politics/ ... ad-turkey/

Myopic.

This was always Trump's position.

However, look at the people he has appointed. Many of them have been pointedly critical of Russia.

Now, the tapes may be more useful in general release then in a vault in St. Petersburg.
(If there are tapes.... and frankly I think its pretty likely there are...)

Of course you do.

Then again, until yesterday, you thought Trump was Putin's puppet. And, you're probably still holding out for proof of collusion.

And, I'm sure you think the "unmasking" by Susan Rice was all in a day's work.

Just proof that lefties can wear the tinfoil just fine.

Speaking of Syria, Kerry and Susan Rice...

Didn't she say that there were not any WMDs in Syria? She stated that John Kerry was successful in the September 2013 meeting in removing all of the WMDs in Syria? Apparently that was not true...

rickyp wrote:rayjay

I'm proud of Trump on this one. He did what Obama should have done.

At the time, Trump's advice was not to act. So? What was your stance in 2013 Ray?

Anyone with basic reading skills and normal memory can tell you that I've been pro US action on Syria for many years.

bbauska

Didn't she say that there were not any WMDs in Syria?

She said this.

We were able to find a solution that didn't necessitate the use of force that actually removed the chemical weapons that were known from Syria, in a way that the use of force would never have accomplished. Our aim in contemplating the use of force following the use of chemical weapons in August of 2013 was not to intervene in the civil war, not to become involved in the combat between Assad and the opposition, but to deal with the threat of chemical weapons by virtue of the diplomacy that we did with Russia and with the Security Council. We were able to get the Syrian government to voluntarily and verifiably give up its chemical weapons stockpile.

Which could be true. And 4 years later they have made more... Or, at the time of the deal, the Russians, who were the players responsible for removing the weapons played everyone.
Both possible.
The deal and the execution of the deal depended upon the Russians.

Faced with attempting the deal, or going to war with Syria, and their partners (Iran and Russia) what would you have done? Wasn't the deal worth a try? There were no chemical weapons attacks in Syria for 3 years after the deal. (Barrel bombs and other monstrous acts yes....)

RayJay

Anyone with basic reading skills and normal memory can tell you that I've been pro US action on Syria for many years.

Really. we're supposed to remember accurately what your position was 4 years ago?
Why?

Fate

Then again, until yesterday, you thought Trump was Putin's puppet. And, you're probably still holding out for proof of collusion

.
Quotes from the Donald.

We should stay the hell out of Syria, the "rebels" are just as bad as the current regime. WHAT WILL WE GET FOR OUR LIVES AND $ BILLIONS?ZERO

june 2013

President Obama, do not attack Syria. There is no upside and tremendous downside. Save your "powder" for another (and more important) day!

sep 2013

What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval

.
aug 2013

If we are going to continue to be stupid and go into Syria (watch Russia), as they say in the movies, SHOOT FIRST AND TALK LATER!

aug 2013

How bad has our "leader" made us look on Syria. Stay out of Syria, we don't have the leadership to win wars or even strategize.

aug 2013

President Obama's weakness and indecision may have saved us from doing a horrible and very costly (in more ways than money) attack on Syria!

sep 2013

If the U.S. attacks Syria and hits the wrong targets, killing civilians, there will be worldwide hell to pay. Stay away and fix broken U.S.

sep 2013

This new Russian strategy guarantees victory for the Syrian government-and makes Obama and U.S. look hopelessly bad. President in trouble!

sep 2013

So now he's following the strategy he crapped on?
And now Congress isn't upset that this action was taken without congressional approval?

I doubt anything much will result from these actions.
The arsenal of 60 missiles cost more than $60 million dollars. (What could a school system in the US do with that kind of money? How many refugees could you resettle?) Apparently they took out 4 or 5 planes.... and killed 7 civilians...
Bush criticized Clinton for bombing sands in Afghanistan with cruise missiles ... This hasn't been much better.

rickyp wrote:bbauska

Didn't she say that there were not any WMDs in Syria?

She said this.

We were able to find a solution that didn't necessitate the use of force that actually removed the chemical weapons that were known from Syria, in a way that the use of force would never have accomplished. Our aim in contemplating the use of force following the use of chemical weapons in August of 2013 was not to intervene in the civil war, not to become involved in the combat between Assad and the opposition, but to deal with the threat of chemical weapons by virtue of the diplomacy that we did with Russia and with the Security Council. We were able to get the Syrian government to voluntarily and verifiably give up its chemical weapons stockpile.

Which could be true. And 4 years later they have made more... Or, at the time of the deal, the Russians, who were the players responsible for removing the weapons played everyone.
Both possible.
The deal and the execution of the deal depended upon the Russians.

Erm, not quite, pally.

According to a recent headline from Reuters, "U.S. intelligence agencies suspect Assad did not turn over all chemical weapons stockpile." The evidence of the recent chemical attack in Syria makes that declaration little more than stating the obvious. However, back in January in an in interview with NPR, Obama national security adviser Susan Rice was still touting the Obama administration's success at removing chemical weapons in Syria:

We were able to find a solution that didn't necessitate the use of force that actually removed the chemical weapons that were known from Syria, in a way that the use of force would never have accomplished. Our aim in contemplating the use of force following the use of chemical weapons in August of 2013 was not to intervene in the civil war, not to become involved in the combat between Assad and the opposition, but to deal with the threat of chemical weapons by virtue of the diplomacy that we did with Russia and with the Security Council. We were able to get the Syrian government to voluntarily and verifiably give up its chemical weapons stockpile

.

So, it wasn't "verifiable" and now there is every reason to think it never happened anyway.

Faced with attempting the deal, or going to war with Syria, and their partners (Iran and Russia) what would you have done? Wasn't the deal worth a try? There were no chemical weapons attacks in Syria for 3 years after the deal. (Barrel bombs and other monstrous acts yes....)

Except, they were hoodwinked--just like in Iran. Bad people do bad things. Blindly trusting them (including the Russians) was one of Obama's biggest flaws.

Fate

Then again, until yesterday, you thought Trump was Putin's puppet. And, you're probably still holding out for proof of collusion

.
Quotes from the Donald.

Your quotes have nothing to do with the alleged collusion.

So now he's following the strategy he crapped on?

No, he's responding to facts on the ground. In the past, he didn't have access to all the intel he does now. The difference between him and Obama: he actually is willing to change his mind when he finds out he was wrong.

And now Congress isn't upset that this action was taken without congressional approval?

Actually, many are. That's typical.

I doubt anything much will result from these actions.
The arsenal of 60 missiles cost more than $60 million dollars. (What could a school system in the US do with that kind of money? How many refugees could you resettle?) Apparently they took out 4 or 5 planes.... and killed 7 civilians...
Bush criticized Clinton for bombing sands in Afghanistan with cruise missiles ... This hasn't been much better.

How many schools could be built with the value of the lives Assad has butchered? How about those babies being hit by chemical weapons and suffering until they died? Their parents holding them while they convulsed and died?

You have no idea whether anything will change. One thing that may change: if Assad uses chemical weapons again, the price will go up.

fate

Actually, many are. That's typical.

In your opinion, is this military action constitutional?
Should he have sought Congressional approval for use of force as Obama did in 2013?


Fate

So, it wasn't "verifiable" and now there is every reason to think it never happened anyway.

I guess you just don't remember the details of what happened.
Most of the chemical weapons were seized and destroyed. Although

The Israeli intelligence community believes the Assad government retains a "residual" chemical stockpile of somewhere between several hundred kilograms to several tons of chemical weapons, about 1% of its original stockpile.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destructi ... al_weapons

There were provisions under the agreement that dealt with military repercussions for failure to comply. They were being debated in the UN befoe the Tomohawks were launched.

If it does not comply with either demand, the Security Council would need to adopt a second resolution regarding imposition of military or other actions against Syria under the UN Charter's Chapter VII

You want to compare the effectiveness of the chemical weapons seizure with the effectiveness of the missile fussilade?
So, how has the missile fussilade worked out? Assad is still flying his planes out of the air base. And still conducting bombing of civilians. The next day.
At least chemical weapons attacks ended for a couple of years...

Fate

Your quotes have nothing to do with the alleged collusion.

My quotes show he has been not only sympathetic but admiring of Putin and Russia...
Right up until 3 days ago.

The collusion between Trumps campaign and Russia is under investigation by the FBI, and is likely to be proven in due course.

Fate

Except, they were hoodwinked--just like in Iran. Bad people do bad things. Blindly trusting them (including the Russians)

The inspection regimen in Iran was not conducted by the Russians... And its much harder to hide evidence of nuclear weapons production.

Fate

No, he's responding to facts on the ground. In the past, he didn't have access to all the intel he does now. The difference between him and Obama: he actually is willing to change his mind when he finds out he was wrong.

This is total BS.
Obama was more than willing to take military action in Syria in 2013. He didn't get Congressional approval for action in Syria. Over 110 members of Congress signed letters (98 republicans) insisting that he follow the law and get Congressional approval. Though most wanted to vote NOT to approve.

The facts on the ground were worse in 2013, far more were killed by chemical weapons. And Assad was known to have had a huge cache of weapons.
The fact is that republicans opposed ANYTHING Obama wanted to do,, just because he was Obama.
The opposition to action in 2013, was never based on any principles other than petty domestic political maneuvering. Trumps opposition then was just the same...
He's acted illegally hasn't he Fate? Where is the respect for the Constitution among Republicans now?

So now the Russians have sent destroyers with their own cruise missiles to the Mediterranean and Assad continues to bomb civilians... Now what?

rickyp wrote:fate

Actually, many are. That's typical.

In your opinion, is this military action constitutional?
Should he have sought Congressional approval for use of force as Obama did in 2013?

Obama sought more than approval for a single strike. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/th ... connection

Obama didn't want the blame for another Libya-style debacle, so he looked to spread the accountability.

A POTUS can take short-term action in defense of American interests. So, I disagree with Rand Paul here.

Fate

So, it wasn't "verifiable" and now there is every reason to think it never happened anyway.

I guess you just don't remember the details of what happened.
Most of the chemical weapons were seized and destroyed. Although

The Israeli intelligence community believes the Assad government retains a "residual" chemical stockpile of somewhere between several hundred kilograms to several tons of chemical weapons, about 1% of its original stockpile.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destructi ... al_weapons

Was that the deal? Was Syria allowed to keep some? Did Kerry/Rice/Obama tell us ALL of the chemical weapons were gone? What was the verification regime?

There were provisions under the agreement that dealt with military repercussions for failure to comply. They were being debated in the UN befoe the Tomohawks were launched.

Yup, and Russia was all set to block anything from happening.

You want to compare the effectiveness of the chemical weapons seizure with the effectiveness of the missile fussilade?
So, how has the missile fussilade worked out? Assad is still flying his planes out of the air base. And still conducting bombing of civilians. The next day.
At least chemical weapons attacks ended for a couple of years...

That's not what the Obama team promised.

If the US wanted to wipe out those air strips, we would have wiped them out. As for the long-term effect, it's hard to tell after two days.

Fate

Your quotes have nothing to do with the alleged collusion.

My quotes show he has been not only sympathetic but admiring of Putin and Russia...
Right up until 3 days ago.

So what? If he prays before Putin's statue every morning, that does not prove collusion.

The collusion between Trumps campaign and Russia is under investigation by the FBI, and is likely to be proven in due course.

Based on what information? Really, name ONE bit of evidence you have. Just one. (Hint: an investigation is not evidence--it is a search for evidence). We know Russia messed around, but what evidence do YOU have of collusion?

Go ahead. I'll wait.

Fate

Except, they were hoodwinked--just like in Iran. Bad people do bad things. Blindly trusting them (including the Russians)

The inspection regimen in Iran was not conducted by the Russians... And its much harder to hide evidence of nuclear weapons production.

Some of it is "self-inspection." I'm sure the Iranians will be ruthless on themselves.

Obama was more than willing to take military action in Syria in 2013. He didn't get Congressional approval for action in Syria. Over 110 members of Congress signed letters (98 republicans) insisting that he follow the law and get Congressional approval. Though most wanted to vote NOT to approve.

You are not providing context. What did Obama ask for? How long did it take him to ask for it? Obama is the man who took months to announce a slight change in policy in Afghanistan. He was a ditherer of the first order.

The facts on the ground were worse in 2013, far more were killed by chemical weapons. And Assad was known to have had a huge cache of weapons.

How many have died between then and now? Who all but invited the Russians in? Who cut a nuclear deal with Iran while allowing Iran to continue to support Assad with troops?

The fact is that republicans opposed ANYTHING Obama wanted to do,, just because he was Obama.

Actually, many were more hawkish than Obama. Look it up. They wanted more than he did. When have McCain and Graham ever said "no" to war?

So now the Russians have sent destroyers with their own cruise missiles to the Mediterranean and Assad continues to bomb civilians... Now what?

Let's send in the Canadians!

Obama drew a red line and then swallowed his tongue. Trump took action. In this case, Trump was right and Obama was wrong.

Have a great day, eh.

fate

Obama sought more than approval for a single strike. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/th
... connection

Yes. Perhaps he knew that a single strike would prove worthless.... As this strike is proving...

Fate

Obama didn't want the blame for another Libya-style debacle, so he looked to spread the accountability.

Yes. Was he wrong to try and gain support for a foreign war?
He was also following the constitution in doing so...

Fate

A POTUS can take short-term action in defense of American interests. So, I disagree with Rand Paul here.

What American interest is served in this strike?
How different is the situation on the ground today than in 2013 when Congress and Trump were opposed?

Fate

Was that the deal? Was Syria allowed to keep some? Did Kerry/Rice/Obama tell us ALL of the chemical weapons were gone? What was the verification regime?

The deal wasn't kept, by the Syrians or the Russians. Ultimately it failed but it kept chemical weapons out of play for almost three years. And it did deeply degrade Assads chemical stockpile...
It hasn't worked ultimately. But it was a worthwhile attempt.
How is one missile strike stacking up against this attempt?

Fate

That's not what the Obama team promised.

Promised? Hoped for, more like.
Again, a worthwhile attempt that has saved lives perhaps. And certainly served to keep the US from being sucked into the Syrian quagmire for 4 years. You in favor of sending in 100,000 troops?

Fate

If the US wanted to wipe out those air strips, we would have wiped them out. As for the long-term effect, it's hard to tell after two days.

Destroying all the air strips was Hillary's plan... You support her foreign policy?
And its not hard to tell after two days. The Syrians are already flying bombers out of the same air field to bomb the same town that they attacked with chemical weapons.

Fate

So what? If he prays before Putin's statue every morning, that does not prove collusion.

Putin is guilty of many of the same war crimes that Assad is committing. (See Czechnya).
He murders journalists.
And yet Trump admires him.... What does that prove? You've elected an idiot.
And on an apparent whim he's spent at least $60 million to dust up a Syrian airfield because he got emotional. Something he apparently managed to avoid in 2013. (Maybe Fox news didn't show pictures of the gas victims in 2013?)

Fate

Based on what information?

Who knows what Mr. Comey is finding. I suspect financial records and dealings will come to bear. Intercepted communications too. And eventually someone will decide to cooperate with his investigators rather than take the fall for lying to the FBI. (A crime in and of itself.) And then who knows how many of Trumps team are indicted? I have 8, in the office pool.
Why do you think Trump is wagging the dog right now?

Fate

Some of it is "self-inspection." I'm sure the Iranians will be ruthless on themselves

Bull.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/f ... ess-by-any

Fate

You are not providing context. What did Obama ask for? How long did it take him to ask for it? Obama is the man who took months to announce a slight change in policy in Afghanistan. He was a ditherer of the first order.

The context is that Congress didn't support action in Syria. Meaning he couldn't back up his "red line" in any meaningful way. His mistake was expecting Congress to care about the fate of hundreds of Syrians being gassed in 2013.

Fate

How many have died between then and now?

Plenty. Would you have landed 100,000 troops in Syria to intervene?
Congress didn't approve of any action..... so his hands were tied weren't they?
By Congress. (Mostly republicans)
Fate

Who all but invited the Russians in?

Congress?
Fate

Who cut a nuclear deal with Iran while allowing Iran to continue to support Assad with troops?

Germany, Britain, France, the EU, China, Russia and the US cut the deal.
Would you rather Iran had nuclear weapons now?

Fate

Actually, many were more hawkish than Obama. Look it up

I did. And I provided you a link to the whipped count of who was oppossed. Most of Congress. Most of Republicans, except Boehner, Cantor and sme other senior leaders.
http://data.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/ ... -positions

Fate

Obama drew a red line and then swallowed his tongue. Trump took action. In this case, Trump was right and Obama was wrong.

Obama sought congressional approval for sustained action and didn't get it.
Trump didn't bother asking for approval to ineffectively hurl 60 missiles at an airbase.
How does that make Trump right? What does he do next?

Trump is wagging the dog Fate. Hoping that this takes the focus off his Russian problem.
Maybe it will.
But he won't solve anything in Syria with those missiles.

Fate

Let's send in the Canadians!

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/operations-a ... mpact.page

Been in the fight for a while..

Most historians agree that a military response to early Nazi aggression (like Sudetenland) would just have mean the war started sooner...

Hi guys, been away for a while.

Some of those historians might want to recall that there was a coup d'etat in the works against Hitler's top generals in the Wehrmacht. In 1939 they were at full readiness including the Luftwaffe. In 1938 they would have been caught with their pants down, which is why the aforementioned generals were planning to place Hitler under arrest if Britain AND France stood shoulder to shoulder and threatened war at the time of the Munich appeasement. The worst is that it would have led to a civil war in Germany I would think, which would have kept Fritz busy for a while and out of the rest of the world's hair.

Anywho, did anyone show this article yet? I'm sure I didn't see it posted above.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/06/politics/hillary-clinton-syria-assad/index.html

Certainly interesting. And good for Hillary to say so. (Though once Trump changed his mind and bombed Syria, of course, there was no further need for Hillary to come out in opposition of Trump this time.)

What American interest is served in this strike?
How different is the situation on the ground today than in 2013 when Congress and Trump were opposed?

Well, it's not: Obama chickened out in 2013 just as Trump seemed for a day or two about to do himself.

But here is where Trump screwed up: he should have gotten the ENTIRE Syrians A.F. on the ground. not just part of it.

jimhackerMP

Some of those historians might want to recall that there was a coup d'etat in the works against Hitler's top generals in the Wehrmacht. In 1939 they were at full readiness including the Luftwaffe. In 1938 they would have been caught with their pants down, which is why the aforementioned generals were planning to place Hitler under arrest if Britain AND France stood shoulder to shoulder and threatened war at the time of the Munich appeasement. The worst is that it would have led to a civil war in Germany I would think, which would have kept Fritz busy for a while and out of the rest of the world's hair.

First, Halder planned to kill Hitler and say he died trying to escape. Not just arrest him. There is no reason to expect that his efforts would have been successful.
Second, Chamberlain knew nothing of Halder's planning...
Third; there is no evidence that there was a Halder like coup in the works in Syria in 2013, nor today.
BTW Halder went on to plan the invasion of Poland, the Low countries, France and Serbia. He Brauchitsch and other generals refused to join Goerdeler in any "political acts" when asked. So, not exactly a committed opposition were they?

jimhacker
Well, it's not: Obama chickened out in 2013 just as Trump seemed for a day or two about to do

himself

Yes, lets reduce the decision to use deadly military action to school yard terms. By all means.
If Obama had acted without congressional approval in 2013 the same people who castigate him for "chickening out" would have got in line to impeach him for acting illegally.
Just as many of the same people who are in line cheering on Trumps ineffective and expensive symbolic action are ignoring the fact he acted illegally. And nobody, including members of Trumps cabinet, can agree on what purpose the act had, nor what is to follow. What is the long term strategy and why will it work?

SInce the attack, Syria has renewed its attacks on the areas held by moderates. Meanwhile US air attacks on ISIS held positions has been reduced . I thought ISIS was priority one?
We might hope by now that America would have learned that mere action does not move the world in the ways it desires.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/04/10/susan-rices-claim-that-obama-got-syria-to-verifiably-give-up-its-chemical-weapons-stockpile/?utm_term=.64e499e07f9b

RickyP said the comments by Susan Rice could be true. Apparently the Washington Post would disagree with him. Susan Rice was given 4 Pinocchios for her Syrian comments.

I just don't think you need to go to Congress for an airstrike given US precedents for using military powers without prior authorization in situations where it is expected that the military involvement is temporary--especially if it is a one-time strike--as long as there is a plausible justification for it. Obama did not want to make the call himself and attempted to shift responsibility to Congress. I think it is fair to say that Russia took note of the fact that Obama was not willing to antagonize Russia. The strike indicates that we will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons and are willing to challenge Russia if they get out of line--both good things. However, our policy in Syria has been incoherent.

And by the way I do not agree that an early challenge of Hitler would not have changed things. When he militarized the Rhineland by sending troops he would have had to retreat if the French had objected. Such a humiliating reversal could have caused him to lose power. In 1938 Czechoslavia had a pretty decent little army with better tanks than Germany had and extensive mountain fortifications. Germany was not nearly as ready to go to war in 1938 as it was in 1939. Highly unlikely that they had enough decent tanks then to pull off a similar attack to the one they did through the Ardennes in 1940 that caused the French defeat. And, again, Hitler realizing how unprepared the German army was for war might have backed down. And that might have caused a loss of face causing political problems. Actually, a military coup was more of a threat because they were not thrilled with him. But as long as he kept winning they were not going to challenge him.