Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> US Missile Strike on Syria, Yay! Boo! Meh.
post Apr 7 2017, 12:40 PM
Post #1

Glasses and journalism work for me.

November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,389
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat

President Trump has ok'd the launch of around 49 or so cruise missiles on an air base in Syria from which a chemical air attack on Syrian people, most importantly to him, children in diapers, was initiated.

Was this strike a good move, a bad move, or just one more ineffective attempt at controlling state-sanctioned (by Syria) terrorism?

What do you expect will happen as a direct result of this cruise missile strike domestically and/or internationally?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 40)
post Apr 22 2017, 01:27 PM
Post #41

Advanced Senior Contributor

August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent

QUOTE(droop224 @ Apr 13 2017, 10:36 PM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ Apr 11 2017, 06:23 PM) *

QUOTE(droop224 @ Apr 11 2017, 05:14 PM) *

The Russians got a one hour warning via the "deconflicting" channel of communication that was set up years ago. The immediate objective of the strike was to inflict pain on Assad, not start a war with Russia.

Ohhh!! Are these the same Russians that are backing the Al-Assad Syrian government that we were attacking? The one and only.

So we are doing a strike on Syrian government which is weak, based on the fact that there was a chemical attack, which we are not sure who committed it. We will target an airfield, but leave the airstrip alone and give the Russians, currently allied with the people we are attacking, one hour head up. "Ummm hey Russia, Yea in about an hour we are going to drop some bombs on that airfield." "This airfield, Uncle Sam??" "Yeppers! That's the one. Take care, mmmm-hmmm bye-bye, yeah, love you too"

Yeah akacg call me crazy, I just don't think this is going to put that "narrative" of Trump and Putin in the same bed to rest.

Didja just choose to ignore the part about said "deconflicting" channel of communication having been put in place years ago (i.e. during the Obama administration)? Or didja just happen to miss it?

1. Neither, just has no relevance. …

Heh. “Funny” how fast you went from characterizing the one hour warning to the Russians as yet another bit of evidence in support of the “Trump hearts Putin” narrative (quote:“Take care, mmmm-hmmm bye-bye, yeah, love you too”) to characterizing it as utterly irrelevant, once it was pointed out/reiterated to you that such warning procedures were instituted during the Obama administration.

QUOTE(droop224 @ Apr 13 2017, 10:36 PM) *

… We set up that channel because we were attacking these "bad guys" and they were attacking those "bad guys" in Syria. [T]hen we decided to attack the Syrian government, the people that Russia is there to support. If we tell them, they are going to tell the Syrian government.

I have little doubt that they did. I’d like to think that the Russians’ heads-up to Assad went something like this: “Good morning, Mr. Assad. Sorry to wake you up at 2 o’clock in the morning, but we wanted to let you know that the Americans are going to bomb one of your six air fields within the hour. What’s that? No, unfortunately they didn’t tell us which one. Anyway, we’re already busy making sure that none of our personnel and assets are anywhere near any of them when the bombs hit, and we thought you’d like to get busy doing the same with yours in the little time that’s left. Oh, you’re most welcome, Mr. Assad. What are friends for? Very sorry, gotta go. Bye for now.”

QUOTE(droop224 @ Apr 13 2017, 10:36 PM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ Apr 11 2017, 06:23 PM) *

Obviously, nothing short of the U.S. downing a couple of Russian-piloted fighter jets or somesuch, and thus escalating things to the point of causing a major conflict between the world's top two nuclear powers, would cause the "Trump is Putin's stooge" crowd to stop clinging on for dear life to said narrative. So, ...

Who are the crazy ones, again?

2. I'm the guy saying there was no necessity to strike at all akacg. So, no I am not the [one]advocating escalating tensions with Russia. ...

Never said you did. I'm pointing out the fact that the "Trump hearts Putin" narrative is so embedded in the "minds" of the people who've been clinging to and perpetuating it for going on months now that, as you yourself acknowledged, not even the fact that Trump bombed Putin's ally's air field and destroyed 20 of Putin's ally's planes would cause them to realize the level of inanity (a.k.a. craziness) involved in continuing to cling to said narrative.

QUOTE(droop224 @ Apr 13 2017, 10:36 PM) *
... In fact if you don't believe there is any relationship between Russia and Trump administration, then wouldn't it be you advocating escalation of tensions by being a proponent of military strike. Right?

I've already clearly stated (as early as post #2, for instance) that the reason why I support the strike on the Shayrat air field is because it was carefully calibrated to cause sufficient pain to Assad and make him think twice about using chemical weapons again, while NOT escalating matters to anywhere near a point where it would throw Syria into complete chaos by destabilizing the Assad regime and/or cause a major conflict between the world's top two nuclear powers.

QUOTE(droop224 @ Apr 13 2017, 10:36 PM) *
Meanwhile, we are crying about the "evilness" of chemical bomb and at the same time excited about the fact we just dropped a 10 M.O.A.B bomb that spreads for a 1 mile radius. Again, I'll never understand the principles of conservatism because over and over and over again you all show your morality to be completely situational.

Yeah. Who in their right mind would view the dropping of a chemical bomb on civilians and the dropping of a MOAB on ISIS terrorists as different situations? After all, the important thing is that both instances involve bombs, which makes them the same. Just like, say, an armed robber shooting a store clerk is the same as a police officer shooting an armed robber. After all, the important thing is that both situations involve bullets./

Good grief.

This post has been edited by akaCG: Apr 22 2017, 01:36 PM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:


Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: March 22nd, 2019 - 08:41 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.