Post by: Number7 on April 07, 2017, 07:47:54 AM
Watching liberals lose their minds over the inhumanity of the President's act is true comedy. The party that constantly pretends to be for the little guy and of the people, can't imagine actually standing up against the use of weapons of mass destruction, employed by the lunatic Assad regime or the purpose of genocide.
It may well spark new middle east tensions, and it might not. That remains to be seen, but the low life, scum slaughtering civilians for sport now know the US will stand up, even though our radicalized, left wing, pansy half will cry like the bitches they are because they've been told to.
It is interesting that this came right after king Abdullah visited Trump. There is much about story untold, I suspect. Also the timing of bombing right after the President finished dining with the Chinese leader has to be intentional.
Something tells me North Korea might be next to feel the wrath fo the Donald...
Post by: LevelWing on April 07, 2017, 07:58:56 AM
I'm sure there are Democrats who don't support this strike, but Chuck Schumer does. He also asked the president to develop a strategy and present it to Congress for approval. Rand Paul did the same thing.
Post by: Lucifer on April 07, 2017, 08:18:08 AM
It's being characterized as a proportional response. The Russians have said that, in response, they will help the Syrians strengthen their air defenses. Assad thought he could keep getting away with this because nothing happened in the past with the so-called "red lines" and now something has happened. We'll see what the fall out from this is.
I'm sure there are Democrats who don't support this strike, but Chuck Schumer does. He also asked the president to develop a strategy and present it to Congress for approval. Rand Paul did the same thing.
Here's the problem: If he presents a strategy to Congress, even in a closed door session, some of those assholes will have it leaked to the press before the meeting is adjourned. The MSM demands to be a part of the "strategy" and we wind up broadcasting our intentions and battle plans to the enemy.
Congress has done more to fuck up military operations in the past 70 years than any other group.
Post by: Steingar on April 07, 2017, 12:31:05 PM
Post by: Number7 on April 07, 2017, 12:32:51 PM
While I approve of anything bad done to the monster than is Assad, the Mango Mussilini's missiles may make more malady than magnanimity. Us at odds with the Russians benefits ISIS. And the last thing we need is to be drawn into another foreign quagmire. I would say that I hope the Cheeto Jesus knows what he's doing, but I am afraid I already know the answer to that one.
I guess the best thing would be for President Trump to emulate Obama and draw a line in the sand and keep backing up when Assad crosses it.
Nothing like weakness, incompetence and cowardice to make your enemies fear you....
Post by: Anthony on April 07, 2017, 12:48:13 PM
While I approve of anything bad done to the monster than is Assad, the Mango Mussilini's missiles may make more malady than magnanimity. Us at odds with the Russians benefits ISIS. And the last thing we need is to be drawn into another foreign quagmire. I would say that I hope the Cheeto Jesus knows what he's doing, but I am afraid I already know the answer to that one.
You do know that Mussolini, like Hitler, and Stalin was a brutal, murdering dictator, right? Also, you do know that Jesus was a non-violent, caring, and very, very honest, and benevolent man, right? So to reference Trump in the same paragraph as Mussolini, and Jesus is a bit ironic, no?
The key to dealing with ISIS, and any terrorist, or terrorist state is to be forceful, not compromise, nor try to appease like Obama did. Of course the Russian will object. So what? Nothing is going to happen between us, and them except Putin's respect for the U.S. just went up several notches.
Post by: Ron22 on April 07, 2017, 04:33:40 PM
While I approve of anything bad done to the monster than is Assad, the Mango Mussilini's missiles may make more malady than magnanimity. Us at odds with the Russians benefits ISIS. And the last thing we need is to be drawn into another foreign quagmire. I would say that I hope the Cheeto Jesus knows what he's doing, but I am afraid I already know the answer to that one.How can Trump be at odds with Russia. We all now Russia got Trump elected and they are in bed together.
Post by: Rush on April 07, 2017, 05:39:41 PM
I know I am. We have a MAN at the helm now with balls and everything. THANK GOD.
Post by: Number7 on April 08, 2017, 06:36:12 AM
Post by: nddons on April 08, 2017, 01:26:12 PM
I'm convinced Putin is secretly loving this. Finally a worthy opponent.(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170408/cd98a3b12724890df4d803c21acb0cd1.jpg)
I know I am. We have a MAN at the helm now with balls and everything. THANK GOD.
Post by: Shawn on April 09, 2017, 10:49:08 AM
I'm convinced Putin is secretly loving this. Finally a worthy opponent.
I head an interesting theory that Putin was pulling all the strings even back to the chemical attack which allowed the US to make an impressive yet relatively inconsequential attack in Syria to help appease both the war mongers who dominate both governmental leaderships as well as squash the Russian ties critics all while bolstering Trump's position in the world standing.
Hmmmmmm....
Post by: Lucifer on April 09, 2017, 11:21:02 AM
I head an interesting theory that Putin was pulling all the strings even back to the chemical attack which allowed the US to make an impressive yet relatively inconsequential attack in Syria to help appease both the war mongers who dominate both governmental leaderships as well as squash the Russian ties critics all while bolstering Trump's position in the world standing.
Hmmmmmm....
Everyone has fantasies, except liberals can't separate them from fact.
Post by: Rush on April 09, 2017, 11:58:05 AM
I head an interesting theory that Putin was pulling all the strings even back to the chemical attack which allowed the US to make an impressive yet relatively inconsequential attack in Syria to help appease both the war mongers who dominate both governmental leaderships as well as squash the Russian ties critics all while bolstering Trump's position in the world standing.
Hmmmmmm....
Kind of like pro wrestling, where one guy will get the other "over". Their fights are fake, and the conflicts are made up, mostly, but they are often an outgrowth and exaggeration of real issues between the wrestlers.
I'd say this is plausible, though I've no idea if it's true. Putin may benefit from having Trump (hence the U.S.) seen as strong again. Maybe better to have two world bullies with an uneasy peace together, than be the only one, with all the little guys plotting how to get the better of you. After all, history has shown that when the U.S. and Russia are allies no one can defeat us.
But to admit this is not to say there's any chance Putin "hacked" the election. That's ludicrous. I think he's much happier dealing with Trump than he would have been Hillary, but he didn't bring this about. The fault of the election is 100% the Democrats. They put up a horrid candidate and they abandoned much of their key demographic (rust belt). Putin had nothing to do with any of that.
Post by: Shawn on April 09, 2017, 04:35:49 PM
Everyone has fantasies, except liberals can't separate them from fact.
HA!..I never said it was true...love how the counter argument is to just scream "LIBERAL!"...nice argument there Bub!
Post by: Lucifer on April 09, 2017, 04:44:09 PM
HA!..I never said it was true...
Nor did I imply that.
love how the counter argument is to just scream "LIBERAL!"...nice argument there Bub!
Just stating fact. If the shoe fits........
Post by: bflynn on April 09, 2017, 07:46:42 PM
HA!..I never said it was true...love how the counter argument is to just scream "LIBERAL!"...nice argument there Bub!
I'm pretty sure what I heard was "that's an idiotic idea". The word Liberal was just gratuitous repetition.
Post by: Anthony on April 10, 2017, 05:55:51 AM
HA!..I never said it was true...love how the counter argument is to just scream "LIBERAL!"...nice argument there Bub!
Did you read Rush's response? I don't believe she used the word "Liberal", but keep telling yourself it is all about name calling. Why is "Liberal" a bad word to you? Are you ashamed of your political bias? I rather use the word "Progressive" as "Liberal" has been wrongly bastardized by our society, thanks to our failed education system, and the media, to mean forward thinking, and benevolent.
Post by: Number7 on April 10, 2017, 06:36:14 AM
I still believe that liberalism is a mental disorder and progressive is just a notch worse.
Post by: Anthony on April 10, 2017, 06:43:16 AM
So essentially, the liberal/progressive/media/education/Democrat cabal LIES using word games.
Post by: nddons on April 10, 2017, 07:15:37 AM
We can't call it Global Warming any longer, it must be "Climate Change" due to the inconvenient truth of the weather changing all the time. I still use the term ILLEGAL ALIEN, as that is what accurately describes them, as an "immigrant" is defined by someone that goes through the legal, immigration process. To say "Undocumented Immigrant" is an oxymoron, as you must be documented (legally) to become an immigrant.I see what you did there.
So essentially, the liberal/progressive/media/education/Democrat cabal LIES using word games.
Post by: Anthony on April 10, 2017, 07:19:47 AM
I see what you did there.
"Anthony........I am your Father.......Al Gore" (said in James Earl Jones, Darth Vader voice) :)
Post by: Steingar on April 10, 2017, 10:09:26 AM
Post by: Little Joe on April 10, 2017, 10:13:29 AM
By the way, can anyone say what the actual consequences of this action were, other than blowing millions of dollars worth of technology (ours) to bits? Yeah, an airbase got blown up, but Assad has lots of those. According to the news Syrian jets were flying out of the one hit hours later. Do we actually have aims in Syria? Are we after regime change? How are we going to get it? Are we sending in troops?My understanding is that it was strictly punishment and hopefully a deterrent, for the use of chemical weapons. It was never meant to shut the base down or influence the war. That is not our job and it was not Trump's intention. But we can't just turn a blind eye to the use of WMDs. Even Hitler never used Chemical weapons.
Post by: Lucifer on April 10, 2017, 10:21:42 AM
By the way, can anyone say what the actual consequences of this action were, other than blowing millions of dollars worth of technology (ours) to bits? Yeah, an airbase got blown up, but Assad has lots of those. According to the news Syrian jets were flying out of the one hit hours later. Do we actually have aims in Syria? Are we after regime change? How are we going to get it? Are we sending in troops?
I will say, and this is a complement, you are on top of the latest Dem and MSM talking points!
Question: Are you even capable of critical or independent thought?
Post by: Rush on April 10, 2017, 11:52:09 AM
By the way, can anyone say what the actual consequences of this action were, other than blowing millions of dollars worth of technology (ours) to bits? Yeah, an airbase got blown up, but Assad has lots of those. According to the news Syrian jets were flying out of the one hit hours later. Do we actually have aims in Syria? Are we after regime change? How are we going to get it? Are we sending in troops?
I think the actual consequences were to send a message, nothing more. It certainly wasn't designed to destroy Syria's warmaking capability. If we wanted to do that, we sure could. Whether we are after regime change or plan to send in ground troops remains to be seen. Trump has clearly said he's not going to telegraph our plans. In the meantime maybe the message is strong enough that Assad will change his behavior. The message is also for the rest of the world. The U.S. now has a President who will not stand by while rogue nations and petty dictators proceed with human rights violations after being told to stop it.
Post by: Little Joe on April 10, 2017, 01:06:26 PM
I think the actual consequences were to send a message, nothing more. It certainly wasn't designed to destroy Syria's warmaking capability. If we wanted to do that, we sure could. Whether we are after regime change or plan to send in ground troops remains to be seen. Trump has clearly said he's not going to telegraph our plans. In the meantime maybe the message is strong enough that Assad will change his behavior. The message is also for the rest of the world. The U.S. now has a President who will not stand by while rogue nations and petty dictators proceed with human rights violations after being told to stop it.I think the bolded and underlined part are a big part of it.
Post by: bflynn on April 10, 2017, 01:16:16 PM
Just like how the media put illegal alien out of play by demonizing anyone who used the phrase, now liberals are trying to make the word liberal a racist, therefore illegal, word.
I still believe that liberalism is a mental disorder and progressive is just a notch worse.
liberalism is a belief in freedom. I think you must be talking about something else. Perhaps you meant to use an upper case L? Or you just meant progressive?
Post by: bflynn on April 10, 2017, 01:18:37 PM
It was never meant to shut the base down or influence the war. That is not our job and it was not Trump's intention.
Had we wanted to shut down the base, we could have turned the runway into a series of craters with just one missile.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on April 10, 2017, 01:52:50 PM
Post by: PaulS on April 10, 2017, 02:22:01 PM
Post by: Jim Logajan on April 10, 2017, 03:23:10 PM
Judging from Russia and Iran's response, I would say the message sent was quite effective.
I counted at least two messages from Trump:
(1) "If you must kill civilians, do it by blasting their bodies to bits the way civilized people do, not by using chemical neurotoxins."
(2) "Policy? Policy!? I don't need no stinking consistent policy!"
Post by: Little Joe on April 10, 2017, 04:18:09 PM
I counted at least two messages from Trump:You're a piece of work Jim. I think I heard there were 6 people killed in that strike, and they were not civilians.
(1) "If you must kill civilians, do it by blasting their bodies to bits the way civilized people do, not by using chemical neurotoxins."
(2) "Policy? Policy!? I don't need no stinking consistent policy!"
But go ahead and live your fantasy.
Post by: nddons on April 10, 2017, 04:57:34 PM
I counted at least two messages from Trump:You're right. The better course of action would have been the status quo:
(1) "If you must kill civilians, do it by blasting their bodies to bits the way civilized people do, not by using chemical neurotoxins."
(2) "Policy? Policy!? I don't need no stinking consistent policy!"
1. Issue strongly worded condemnation.
2. Take hashtag selfie #bring back our Syrians; post on internet.
3. Join UN in anti-Israel resolution.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on April 10, 2017, 06:15:14 PM
I counted at least two messages from Trump:
(1) "If you must kill civilians, do it by blasting their bodies to bits the way civilized people do, not by using chemical neurotoxins."
(2) "Policy? Policy!? I don't need no stinking consistent policy!"
Unreal. Did the missiles get sent indiscriminately into some residential neighborhood, or into a military base? I guess to libs they are the same.
BTW, are these WMD stores from Saddam's palace basement?
Post by: Jim Logajan on April 10, 2017, 07:54:47 PM
You're a piece of work Jim. I think I heard there were 6 people killed in that strike, and they were not civilians.
But go ahead and live your fantasy.
Nowhere did I say we killed any civilians. I was attempting to point out that Assad has been killing civilians for years and Trump only claimed revulsion when chemical weapons were used. If Assad can keep killing civilians by conventional weapons he wont have to worry about Trump.
As to policy consistency - well, feel free to look up what Trump has said about the U.S. getting involved in the mideast back when he was a candidate. Or even a few weeks ago.
Post by: nddons on April 10, 2017, 08:45:16 PM
Nowhere did I say we killed any civilians. I was attempting to point out that Assad has been killing civilians for years and Trump only claimed revulsion when chemical weapons were used. If Assad can keep killing civilians by conventional weapons he wont have to worry about Trump.The use of a weapon of mass destruction I see kind of a game changer, don't you think?
As to policy consistency - well, feel free to look up what Trump has said about the U.S. getting involved in the mideast back when he was a candidate. Or even a few weeks ago.
Post by: Jim Logajan on April 10, 2017, 09:24:43 PM
The use of a weapon of mass destruction I see kind of a game changer, don't you think?
Here's President Trump's statement of justification at the Whitehouse web site:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/04/06/statement-president-trump-syria (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/04/06/statement-president-trump-syria)
The closest he gets to WMD as a justification is the sentence "It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons." Otherwise the beginning starts out with justifications that apply equally well to attacks the Assad regime has made (and continues to make) using conventional weapons. Things like barrel bombs and double-tap attacks.
Post by: bflynn on April 11, 2017, 02:17:51 AM
Judging from Russia and Iran's response, I would say the message sent was quite effective.
I would say the message hasn't been received yet.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on April 11, 2017, 05:40:03 AM
Post by: Little Joe on April 11, 2017, 06:11:11 AM
Post by: nddons on April 11, 2017, 10:15:05 AM
Here's President Trump's statement of justification at the Whitehouse web site:Yet he took no action until WMDs were employed. That was the triggering event. What he said afterwards is known as the kitchen sink.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/04/06/statement-president-trump-syria (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/04/06/statement-president-trump-syria)
The closest he gets to WMD as a justification is the sentence "It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons." Otherwise the beginning starts out with justifications that apply equally well to attacks the Assad regime has made (and continues to make) using conventional weapons. Things like barrel bombs and double-tap attacks.
Post by: Number7 on April 11, 2017, 10:42:40 AM
I would say the message hasn't been received yet.
I would say that no matter what action Donald Trump takes, or refuses to take, there will be the chronically uninformed liberals ready to attack him either way and without a shred of integrity involved in the doing.
The least informed people I meet always seem to reside to the left of center and never let the facts get in the way of their diatribes of stupidity.
Post by: PaulS on April 11, 2017, 12:07:32 PM
Obama and Hillary have so f'd up dealing with Russia we may already be beyond the point of return.
Post by: LevelWing on April 12, 2017, 03:08:08 PM
Quote from: RT/Vladimir Safronkov
“The main objection to the resolution is that it apportioned blame prior to an objective outside investigation of the incident... The outcome of the vote was predestined, because we disagreed categorically with a document that was fundamentally misconceived,” said Vladimir Safronkov, Russia’s deputy envoy at the Security Council, who also accused other states and international organizations of making “no effort” to inspect the site of the alleged attack.
https://www.rt.com/news/384534-un-resulution-syria-chemical/
Post by: Number7 on April 12, 2017, 03:11:22 PM
In that regard it is very like the American Congress.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on April 12, 2017, 06:22:56 PM
Russia vetoed the UN Security Council resolution condemning the chemical attack by the Syrians on their own people today:
https://www.rt.com/news/384534-un-resulution-syria-chemical/ (https://www.rt.com/news/384534-un-resulution-syria-chemical/)
China abstained