Syria (or possibly Russia) used chemical weapons on its own people

DWags wrote:Fuck goose that side NOW HAS TO STOP BLAMING OTHERS! THEYRE IN CHARGE. FUCKING DO SOMETHING. KIDS ARE DYING

Ok Obama and Kerry fucked up. They were horrible. What the fuck will we do there? Blame Obama?

Send Syrian refugees back?

The_Dude wrote:I say we draw a red line...

Republicans in Congress were the ones that stopped any action taking place, not Obama by the way.

https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/63n8lm/in_response_to_chemical_attacks_in_idlib_syria/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/06/tillerson-says-coalition-forming-to-target-assad-trump-hearing-military-options.html

I thought we were going to let the Syrian people solve this problem. Guess not.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

The_Dude wrote:I say we draw a red line...

Republicans in Congress were the ones that stopped any action taking place, not Obama by the way.

https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/63n8lm/in_response_to_chemical_attacks_in_idlib_syria/

Yeah because presidents ask congress before military action now. Doh!

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/06/tillerson-says-coalition-forming-to-target-assad-trump-hearing-military-options.html

I thought we were going to let the Syrian people solve this problem. Guess not.

Complete cluster. Would Assad be stupid enough to go down swinging?

The_Dude wrote:

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

Republicans in Congress were the ones that stopped any action taking place, not Obama by the way.

https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/63n8lm/in_response_to_chemical_attacks_in_idlib_syria/

Yeah because presidents ask congress before military action now. Doh!

I'm guessing you didn't read anything in the link? I'm not going to force feed the dumb, sorry.

Carry on parroting Rush.

The_Dude wrote:

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

Republicans in Congress were the ones that stopped any action taking place, not Obama by the way.

https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/63n8lm/in_response_to_chemical_attacks_in_idlib_syria/

Yeah because presidents ask congress before military action now. Doh!

Obama Seeks Approval by Congress for Strike in Syria

If it wasn't covered by FoxNews or Limbaugh on radio a majority of connies never hear of things like the GOP Congress talking tough but when it came time to make a definitive decision like approving President Obama's request they wouldn't touch it.

So this thread should be interesting now. Yesterday Reps here were saying we shouldn't do anything, and several of the Dems here were calling for Trump to do something.

What say you all now? Dems supporting something Trump did? Republicans opposing it? Cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria!

I don't know what's right or wrong but either way I'm terrified that Trump is ordering missile strikes. Is this guy sane enough for all of us to be comfortable with that?

It's why we have to step in for humanity sake and it's why you don't stop refugees that need to leave bad situations

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
The President must get Congressional approval before attacking Syria-big mistake if he does not!
7:02 PM - 30 Aug 2013

NigelUno wrote:Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
The President must get Congressional approval before attacking Syria-big mistake if he does not!
7:02 PM - 30 Aug 2013

Are we supposed to be surprised? Only the morons will now say it's different.

So a friend and I were texting and he said Russians were on the base that the US hit with the missile strike. Is this true?

Is WW3 about to pop off?

I'm really uncomfortable with a guy who loses his mind when Rosie O'Donnell paints him in an unfavorable light is able to make decisions that could potentially start WW3. I mean that's just me but.

WhiteBoyHatcher wrote:So a friend and I were texting and he said Russians were on the base that the US hit with the missile strike. Is this true?

Is WW3 about to pop off?

Ghost?

No Congressional approval but they called a lot of people.

I don't think Putin will make a big deal about any Russian personnel deaths. He'll use it to his advantage.

Look what happened in Turkey after the Russian diplomat was assasinated in Turkey. Weeks later Putin is making friends with Erdagan.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Yeah!!  Why would anyone mention Obama?   He and Kerry solved this problem years ago - obviously that dumb fuck Trump screwed it all up again in just 76 days  - let's blame him.




Wonder if that will get as popular as "BushLiedPeopleDied"??

Did Syria forget how to make chemical weapons since 2014?

Just so you know, you're climbing toward the top of my Swill pussy lib wanker list

Probably what our economy needs.

xsanguine wrote:Probably what our economy needs.

Gives the major gasoline producers a reason to bump fuel prices again. Uncertainty in the Middle East is always a good reason.

xsanguine wrote:Probably what our economy needs.

The 95% lib media will twist all they can get their tiny little brains to cook up against Trump.

Maybe Assad can just go back to being an eye doctor in London. Is his license to practice still good?

https://twitter.com/seanhannity/status/375071259643879425

Russians put on notice.

And they don't sound too happy about it.

Scorecard:

Support: Turkey, Japan, Israel

Condemn: Russia, Iran

Probably more in each category, just what I've seen/heard so far. Shocking developments, I know.

WhiteBoyHatcher wrote:So a friend and I were texting and he said Russians were on the base that the US hit with the missile strike. Is this true?

Is WW3 about to pop off?

If you put your advisors in a war zone, you don't have a right to cry foul (except maybe just for posturing or saving face) if they get killed. We didn't raise hell when our advisors were killed by the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 80s, and they didn't bitch when Russkies were killed by us in Nam.

The Pantry wrote:

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

Did Syria forget how to make chemical weapons since 2014?

Just so you know, you're climbing toward the top of my Swill pussy lib wanker list

Care to engage your brain and answer my question? No? Put a nice safe label on me then snowflake.

Is the Constitution flexible on certain things?

I don't think there are any good options in Syria, but destroying the ability to launch chemical attacks is probably the closest thing to a good option. There are at least 10 different factions operating in Syria right now, very few of them are allied for any one cause. It's a complete shitshow. Two questions I still need answered: 1). The Obama administration seemed confident that they had gotten all the chemical weapons. Are these holdouts, newly manufactured, or were they a present from another country? 2). Is the administration certain it was Syrians that carried out the attacks? If so, how?

Now I get jaded: There is no risk here for Trump. He gets an approval bump at home for flexing his muscles and looking presidential. He appears to be sticking his thumb in Putin's eye, which can only help, and he distracts from all the other terrible things he's doing at home. It was a no-brainer.

You know why Rand Paul is the only person saying anything negative? Because the entire party's collective eyes lit up when those babies were gassed. They knew it was just what they needed. War is the elixir for a failing administration.

Liberals right now:

Rocinante wrote:I don't think there are any good options in Syria, but destroying the ability to launch chemical attacks is probably the closest thing to a good option. There are at least 10 different factions operating in Syria right now, very few of them are allied for any one cause. It's a complete shitshow. Two questions I still need answered: 1). The Obama administration seemed confident that they had gotten all the chemical weapons. Are these holdouts, newly manufactured, or were they a present from another country? 2). Is the administration certain it was Syrians that carried out the attacks? If so, how?

Now I get jaded: There is no risk here for Trump. He gets an approval bump at home for flexing his muscles and looking presidential. He appears to be sticking his thumb in Putin's eye, which can only help, and he distracts from all the other terrible things he's doing at home. It was a no-brainer.

You know why Rand Paul is the only person saying anything negative? Because the entire party's collective eyes lit up when those babies were gassed. They knew it was just what they needed. War is the elixir for a failing administration.

Out of curiosity, what are these terrible things he's doing at home?

I think bombing Syria is more of a message to other world actors.

NigelUno wrote:Is the Constitution flexible on certain things?  

Barry says hello from Libya!

http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/19/10-ways-obama-violated-constitution-presidency/

The_Dude wrote:

NigelUno wrote:Is the Constitution flexible on certain things?  

Barry says hello from Libya!

http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/19/10-ways-obama-violated-constitution-presidency/

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
The President must get Congressional approval before attacking Syria-big mistake if he does not!
7:02 PM - 30 Aug 2013

The_Dude wrote:

Rocinante wrote:I don't think there are any good options in Syria, but destroying the ability to launch chemical attacks is probably the closest thing to a good option. There are at least 10 different factions operating in Syria right now, very few of them are allied for any one cause. It's a complete shitshow. Two questions I still need answered: 1). The Obama administration seemed confident that they had gotten all the chemical weapons. Are these holdouts, newly manufactured, or were they a present from another country? 2). Is the administration certain it was Syrians that carried out the attacks? If so, how?

Now I get jaded: There is no risk here for Trump. He gets an approval bump at home for flexing his muscles and looking presidential. He appears to be sticking his thumb in Putin's eye, which can only help, and he distracts from all the other terrible things he's doing at home. It was a no-brainer.

You know why Rand Paul is the only person saying anything negative? Because the entire party's collective eyes lit up when those babies were gassed. They knew it was just what they needed. War is the elixir for a failing administration.

Out of curiosity, what are these terrible things he's doing at home?

I think bombing Syria is more of a message to other world actors.

I will actually answer you for once. Well, his proposed budget is fucking Machiavellian. He lies constantly. When he's not lying, he's golfing. He promotes Fox News shows. His cabinet uses their positions to promote products, or make regulations that benefit themselves financially. He killed internet privacy rules. He has begun an all out war on the independence of women. Oh yeah, and he fed intel to the House Intelligence Committee to try to undermine the investigation into his Russia ties. Should I keep going, or are we good?

The_Dude wrote:

Rocinante wrote:I don't think there are any good options in Syria, but destroying the ability to launch chemical attacks is probably the closest thing to a good option. There are at least 10 different factions operating in Syria right now, very few of them are allied for any one cause. It's a complete shitshow. Two questions I still need answered: 1). The Obama administration seemed confident that they had gotten all the chemical weapons. Are these holdouts, newly manufactured, or were they a present from another country? 2). Is the administration certain it was Syrians that carried out the attacks? If so, how?

Now I get jaded: There is no risk here for Trump. He gets an approval bump at home for flexing his muscles and looking presidential. He appears to be sticking his thumb in Putin's eye, which can only help, and he distracts from all the other terrible things he's doing at home. It was a no-brainer.

You know why Rand Paul is the only person saying anything negative? Because the entire party's collective eyes lit up when those babies were gassed. They knew it was just what they needed. War is the elixir for a failing administration.

Out of curiosity, what are these terrible things he's doing at home?

I think bombing Syria is more of a message to other world actors.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/03/every-terrifying-thing-that-donald-trump-has-done.html

Here's a few. Read up.

Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump

Now that Obama’s poll numbers are in tailspin – watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate.

2:39 PM - 9 Oct 2012

NigelUno wrote:Is the Constitution flexible on certain things?  

I would think so, otherwise why do we have a Supreme Court and other federal courts?  There's always talk about interpreting the Constitution, what the forefathers intended versus what is actually written (especially with the 2nd amendment), etc.

But in the context of this thread, what Constitutional issue do you feel was violated or made to be flexible?  Attacking another country?  He doesn't need Congressional approval for this attack, any more than Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford (?), Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, or Truman did for most of the attacks that they ordered.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

NigelUno wrote:Is the Constitution flexible on certain things?  

I would think so, otherwise why do we have a Supreme Court and other federal courts?  There's always talk about interpreting the Constitution, what the forefathers intended versus what is actually written (especially with the 2nd amendment), etc.

But in the context of this thread, what Constitutional issue do you feel was violated or made to be flexible?  Attacking another country?  He doesn't need Congressional approval for this attack, any more than Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford (?), Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, or Eisenhower did for most of the attacks that they ordered.

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
The President must get Congressional approval before attacking Syria-big mistake if he does not!
7:02 PM - 30 Aug 2013

MiamiSpartan wrote: Attacking another country?  He doesn't need Congressional approval for that, any more than Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford (?), Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, or Eisenhower did for attacks that they ordered.

This is a real sticking point for me. I think a president should always have to secure some kind of congressional approval for a strike that is not either in direct response to an attack on Americans, or in defense of an anticipated strike (preemptive). The reason being, we have situations like what's been going on all over the middle-east: Constant air strikes without any actual declaration of war, war being fought with no consequences to those waging it back home. There needs to be authorizations so that constituents can hold their reps accountable for the forever war that is no war.

The easy cop out of never actually declaring war makes nobody responsible, and the defense contractors keep the $$ rolling in.

The budget is kind of the same way. You know there hasn't been an actual budget passed and serious budget since 2010, right?