Syria

Technically, the use of sarin gas is a threat to US interest as we have troops on the ground in Syria.
 
After reading that Asshat Assad was using chemical weapons against his own people, I decided I support this move. Screw him. His country is full of terrorists, and so are all the neighboring countries, so if he possesses that sort of stuff, then sooner or later, ISIS or Al Qaeda or someone else will have it. And then it becomes a threat to the US. Or Europe. Imagine if those trucks that have been crashing into crowds were rigged to disperse that gas after they crash?

I'm still in favor of building relations with Russia...but they themselves have been victims of Islamic Terrorism and they should be on board with getting rid of that sort of weapon. I don't care if they take over Syria. They can have that dump. But destroy the chemicals and WMDs, etc, so ISIS can't get them.
 
The main reason the Russians support Assad is because Russia wants access to the Syrian ports for their naval ships.
 
Boss 302 said:
Technically, the use of sarin gas is a threat to US interest as we have troops on the ground in Syria.
Click to expand...
Did we even destroy the sarin? To believe that, one would have to believe that when the Pentagon told their counterparts in Russia well in advance of the attack that they did not tell the Syrians. Further, you would have to believe that what appears to be a modern air force base with 40 shelters and storage facilities, and acres of aircraft parking housed only the six aircraft and a handful of personnel that were there at the time of the attack. The base is home to three squadrons of Syrian aircraft, and an unreported number of Russian aircraft. So either it was lunch time and everyone flew to McDonalds, or they bugged out before we hit the base, taking everything they could carry with them... probably including any left over sarin gas.
 
Last edited:
lotstodo said:
Did we even destroy the sarin? To believe that, one would have to believe that when the Pentagon told their counterparts in Russia well in advance of the attack that they did not tell the Syrians. Further, you would have to believe that what appears to be a modern air force base with 40 shelters and storage facilities, and acres of aircraft parking housed only the six aircraft and a handful of personnel that were there at the time of the attack. The base is home to three squadrons of Syrian aircraft, and an unreported number of Russian aircraft. So either it was lunch time and everyone flew to McDonalds, or they bugged out before we hit the base, taking everything they could carry with them... probably including any left over sarin gas.
Click to expand...
The next time, Trump should give no warning.
 
I try to keep it into proper prospective. Would we have wanted interference during our Civil War? A foreign power picking one side over the other. The older I get the more I take the position of stay out of other's conflicts unless we're in imminent danger. In time I fully expect our country to again be involved in another uncivil "Civil War." I don't think many of us would want to see missiles from a foreign country being sent into our country. Aren't we funding something called the UN? Time to send in the blue hats.
 
I'm trying to keep an open mind and give it some time.

Foreign policy is sometimes a lot like a poker game, and I'm sure there is a lot going on that we don't know.

But I will say this...and it's just a generic statement that is not necessarily connected to this issue: History has shown that the United States is generally safer when we project a message of strength and zero tolerance. As another general rule: Modern day Democrats have demonstrated weakness and a hesitancy to take strong action against some of our enemies. Republicans, with all their other faults; have been much tougher in dealing with foreign enemies and striking back hard when they mess with us.

According to my observations; most attacks or threats to our security have occurred during or just after a Democrat administration, and the next Republican has had to deal with it. I think we're seeing some of that now. The Obama administration coddled the Muslims, and now we're paying the price for it.

Now granted...both parties have gotten us involved in things we should have stayed out of. And I would like to see less of that in the future.

But I do think we need to let the world know that the wusses are not in power anymore, and we're not playing around now. Done properly, that should help us to avoid some conflicts.
 
Guard Dad said:
I'm trying to keep an open mind and give it some time.

Foreign policy is sometimes a lot like a poker game, and I'm sure there is a lot going on that we don't know.

But I will say this...and it's just a generic statement that is not necessarily connected to this issue: History has shown that the United States is generally safer when we project a message of strength and zero tolerance. As another general rule: Modern day Democrats have demonstrated weakness and a hesitancy to take strong action against some of our enemies. Republicans, with all their other faults; have been much tougher in dealing with foreign enemies and striking back hard when they mess with us.

According to my observations; most attacks or threats to our security have occurred during or just after a Democrat administration, and the next Republican has had to deal with it. I think we're seeing some of that now. The Obama administration coddled the Muslims, and now we're paying the price for it.

Now granted...both parties have gotten us involved in things we should have stayed out of. And I would like to see less of that in the future.

But I do think we need to let the world know that the wusses are not in power anymore, and we're not playing around now. Done properly, that should help us to avoid some conflicts.
Click to expand...
I think he did it as a strategic move to distance himself , or the perception by Americans, from Russsia and this investigation.
Clearly his thoughts on Syria a couple of years ago were completely different as noted by his constant twittering account so why now? Those people have been fighting and doing inhumane things for thousands of years.
All I heard before the election was "I don't have a choice. I don't like him but I'm voting for him because he is Republican and he can't do anything without Congress anyways."
Well, we see he can and there is no telling what else he has planned to provoke those people or even our own.
In his narcisistic mind, he needed to divert any attention away from his lack of integrity and possibly breaking laws before the election and also his failure to get the healthcare straightened out.
We need to continue building up our defense in this country because especially now we are more at risk for terrorist groups to do something stupid here in USA.
I can see us getting in a war with Syria, Russia and who knows else which will be a drama for him but it will not be in our best interests.
 
J-man said:
I try to keep it into proper prospective. Would we have wanted interference during our Civil War? A foreign power picking one side over the other. The older I get the more I take the position of stay out of other's conflicts unless we're in imminent danger. In time I fully expect our country to again be involved in another uncivil "Civil War." I don't think many of us would want to see missiles from a foreign country being sent into our country. Aren't we funding something called the UN? Time to send in the blue hats.
Click to expand...
I agree with what you're saying here. One significant problem though with UN action is Russia as they have a veto vote. The Russians want Assad in power because he has given them access to Syrian ports for their naval ships. Those ports give Russia a military presence in the Mediterranean. The Saudis have been wanting to establish an oil pipeline to Syrian ports for years now. These pipelines would reduce the Saudi's shipping costs by greatly reducing the need to ship oil via the Persian Gulf. The pipelines would also provide greater security from the Iranian threat.

Russia also wants to build a natural gas pipeline through Turkey to Syrian ports to reduce costs of exporting their natural gas to European countries who buy it.

Russia is not happy with Assad using chemical weapons on his own people as this gives the world the impression Russia supports his use of chemical weapons. Don't be surprised if Russia takes Assad out of power and influences a new government in Syria the rest of the world will condone and give Russia what it wants.
 
Boss 302 said:
I agree with what you're saying here. One significant problem though with UN action is Russia as they have a veto vote. The Russians want Assad in power because he has given them access to Syrian ports for their naval ships. Those ports give Russia a military presence in the Mediterranean. The Saudis have been wanting to establish an oil pipeline to Syrian ports for years now. These pipelines would reduce the Saudi's shipping costs by greatly reducing the need to ship oil via the Persian Gulf. The pipelines would also provide greater security from the Iranian threat.


Russia also wants to build a natural gas pipeline through Turkey to Syrian ports to reduce costs of exporting their natural gas to European countries who buy it.

Russia is not happy with Assad using chemical weapons on his own people as this gives the world the impression Russia supports his use of chemical weapons. Don't be surprised if Russia takes Assad out of power and influences a new government in Syria the rest of the world will condone and give Russia what it wants.
Click to expand...


oh ok. So Trump is doing a favor for the Russians? That's possible too and wouldn't surprise me but let Russia do their own missile strikes.
 
Boss 302 said:
I agree with what you're saying here. One significant problem though with UN action is Russia as they have a veto vote. The Russians want Assad in power because he has given them access to Syrian ports for their naval ships. Those ports give Russia a military presence in the Mediterranean. The Saudis have been wanting to establish an oil pipeline to Syrian ports for years now. These pipelines would reduce the Saudi's shipping costs by greatly reducing the need to ship oil via the Persian Gulf. The pipelines would also provide greater security from the Iranian threat.

Russia also wants to build a natural gas pipeline through Turkey to Syrian ports to reduce costs of exporting their natural gas to European countries who buy it.

Russia is not happy with Assad using chemical weapons on his own people as this gives the world the impression Russia supports his use of chemical weapons. Don't be surprised if Russia takes Assad out of power and influences a new government in Syria the rest of the world will condone and give Russia what it wants.
Click to expand...
I would have no problem if Assad suddenly had an accident or food poisoning like so many who oppose Putin. I really wouldn't mind a pro Russian government in Syria as an alternative to Assad or the enivitble Muslim theocracy. It could be much worse for us in the region to have a pro Iranian or radical Islamist in power there.
 
honeybunny said:
Mattis says the U.S. strike on al-Shayrat took out a fifth of #Assad's "operational aircraft".

In one night. After six years of mayhem.

http://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2017/0...-destroyed-20-of-operational-syrian-aircraft/

:goodjob:
Click to expand...
Well there is a big problem here. That base is home to two wings of Syrian aircraft and an unreported number of Russian aircraft. It is one of the most active bases in Syria with aircraft frequently lining the taxiways and pads. The "after" pictures show only four aircraft parked outside and two destroyed inside earthen hangars. The Russians report six aircraft destroyed. There are over 450 aircraft in the Syrian Air Force. Somebody is lying, and the pictures support Putin's claim that six were destroyed. The rest pretty obviously bugged out before the strike.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top