BREAKING: Trump Attacks Syrian Airbase

[OBEY 57,109]

17 hours ago, Gaga Monster said:

Every country except Russia and Iran have came out against the attack. The democrats supported the attack. It was very successful. It showed North Korea look, if you do something bad, we have these weapons we aren't scared to use. It showed Assad, unlike the previous administration, we will do something.

Canada said it supported Trump and didnt UK said the same too?

[Gaga Monster 13,001]

45 minutes ago, OBEY said:

Canada said it supported Trump and didnt UK said the same too?

I worded it wrong. I meant Iran and Russia didnt support it and every other country did

[MelbHawker 6,583]

23 hours ago, Born To Slay said:

The United States regularly kills innocent people in the Middle East.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-air-strike-mosul-200-civilians-killed-isis-northern-iraq-pentagon-central-command-islamic-state-a7651451.html

I know. I find it interesting that reports re: the strikes in Israel are coming to the surface now that the US has gone into Syria. 

[MelbHawker 6,583]

23 hours ago, Whispering said:

It is different because the armed forces of the US attacked the armed forces of a sovereign nation, and it wasn't due to our forces being threatened. There is a legality issue, both with the US government and with the UN. An attack on terrorists, like ISIS, doesn't need the approval of congress...but an attack on a sovereign nation is different. 

I see your point, but I don't think the US has based it's strikes/attacks on other nations purely on whether or not it's armed forces were being threatened at the time. 

As for Syria being a sovereign nation.. I don't think that is reason enough for a strike not to happen on the US's behalf, regardless of any legalities - we're talking about a corrupt government that is chemically killing it's citizens. It's a sovereign nation's right to govern as it pleases, but when that government is truly corrupt and lead by a dangerous war criminal/terrorist... I'm sorry but Syria's sovereignty should not and is not saving it from international intervention. Assad is a terrorist by definition. 

[MelbHawker 6,583]

20 hours ago, Whispering said:

BTW, we are doing something. Fighting ISIS. Now, we will be fighting to strengthen ISIS.

Taking out a base in Syria which housed chemical weapons used to kill innocent citizens of the nation is not strengthening ISIS at all; chemical weapons are one of the many weapons ISIS use to damage their opponents. What do you think would occur if ISIS overthrow Assad and take hold of Syria? They'd have direct access to all of Syria's armed forces. I'm here for the US contributing in destroying such forces. It's to the disadvantage of both Assad/ISIS. 

[Prada 1,200]

On 07.04.2017 at 4:44 AM, Gaga Monster said:

Assad doesn't want war with the US. We can easily come in and dethrone him. This shows Assad we are strong and we will take action if you don't stop. It is tough leadership and strong leadership. I don't think any civilians were killed since it was an airbase not a village. The past 6 years of us dealing with Syria has let them get away with serious crimes, it is time to take a stand and tell Assad, we will do something about the victims.

Ohh! Im so happy.

America is gonna bring democracy again.

[Prada 1,200]

23 hours ago, Whispering said:

It is different because the armed forces of the US attacked the armed forces of a sovereign nation, and it wasn't due to our forces being threatened. There is a legality issue, both with the US government and with the UN. An attack on terrorists, like ISIS, doesn't need the approval of congress...but an attack on a sovereign nation is different. 

yes.US has been in Middle East for decades playing games.Actually there are lots ofhistorians already saying US is in Middle East to steal,so its already a fact...Not a lie.

and as you said this Syria air base attack is legality issue.YES İT İS.

But there is one thing you get wrong.

Before attacking or creating havoc,US always creates a reason to attack.''Legal reasons''

Otherwise do you mean US is in the Middle East for years just to steal? Either way,US should get out of Middle East...Why don't you try saving Africa instead of saving Middle East.I bet Russia and Turkey together would fix Middle East if there were no US.And also Europe would have to get in in fear of Turkey letting go millions of refugees out of border.

 

 

 

[PartySick 173,483]

26 minutes ago, MelbHawker said:

Taking out a base in Syria which housed chemical weapons used to kill innocent citizens of the nation is not strengthening ISIS at all; chemical weapons are one of the many weapons ISIS use to damage their opponents. What do you think would occur if ISIS overthrow Assad and take hold of Syria? They'd have direct access to all of Syria's armed forces. I'm here for the US contributing in destroying such forces. It's to the disadvantage of both Assad/ISIS. 

We didn't take it out though  it's a scratch at best. Within 24 hours, planes were still taking off from it because no actual damage was done aside from a few planes 

And I believe Whispering is saying that if we take out Assad, that's basically laying a welcome mat out for ISIS to come in and take control unless we maintain a constant military presence and basically take control ourselves which didn't work out before when we tried and it most likely wouldn't work out this time  So yeah, imo, Trump needs to meet with Obama, Hillary, and all the military advisers he can call on to devise an actual plan of attack on ISIS. Obama brought them to their knees, Trump could deliver the last blow if he played his cards right. Then we take on Assad for his crimes against humanity and deal with the resulting fallout with Russia.

That'd be the smart thing to do imo...even though I'm still against all acts of violence.

1 minute ago, Adriana Lima said:

yes.US has been in Middle East for decades playing games.Actually there are lots ofhistorians already saying US is in Middle East to steal,so its already a fact...Not a lie.

I'd believe it. Let's not forget the current mess (the most pressing details at least) started with the lie that our "enemies" had weapons of mass destruction and that was our "justification" to invade a totally different country

Like it or not, there's a reason behind the U.S. having a reputation of being imperialistic. We intervene far too much and hardly ever for the right reasons. Sometimes there isn't an actual reason at all. Trump's dressing this up as fighting for the Syrian people but if that were true, he'd be offering refuge to those who need it. Instead, he's slamming the door in their face and dropping bombs in some limp-wristed, thinly veiled effort to have his approval rating go up a few percentage points.

[Prada 1,200]

If America wants to help Syria;

1-please take some of these refugees from Europe.

2-stop selling weapon to ISIS,PKK,PYD. America is rich,doesn't need war,blood money.

How funny those terrorist organisations kill American soldiers in Iraq,Syria and still they are proven to use American weapons.........America does bad to its own people.

 

[FGGrayson 9,670]

On 6/4/2017 at 9:02 PM, PartySick said:

 

^

If there's one thing the U.S. has taught us in the last few decades, it's that we don't know how to fight a war and end a struggle. Time and time again we've intervened, stuck our nose where it doesn't belong, and watched as things blow up in our face. We arm rebels to fight an oppressive government, the rebels become radicalized and an enemy. We topple an oppressive government directly, we empower a terrorist cell that we've been fighting for twelve years and counting.

What's going to be the result of this? What's the outcome?

Spoiler alert:

  Reveal hidden contents

We're just going to piss someone else off, empower some other hateful moron(s), cause more deaths, and the cycle will start all over again. Diplomacy is the only way to end a struggle because war begets war begets war.

 

  agree with everything u said, i hope to see all those prowar taste it to see how ****ed up they all end, and see if they still agree with that bs

[FGGrayson 9,670]

4 hours ago, Adriana Lima said:

If America wants to help Syria;

1-please take some of these refugees from Europe.

2-stop selling weapon to ISIS,PKK,PYD. America is rich,doesn't need war,blood money.

How funny those terrorist organisations kill American soldiers in Iraq,Syria and still they are proven to use American weapons.........America does bad to its own people.

 

 @Gaga Monster

[FGGrayson 9,670]

On 7/4/2017 at 1:55 PM, Whispering said:

Ok...let's break this down. Of course every country is against chemical attacks on citizens. Those countries aren't attacking another sovereign country's arm forces without the pre-approval of the UN, a coalition or their government.

The civil war in Syria is FAR more complicated than your simplistic statements you keep regurgitating. First of all, now the US is fighting on both sides of a civil war. Now, we are actually helping ISIS. Russia or Iran could easily use this attack to retaliate on our forces there or on one of our allies there. Then, US forces will have to retaliate...and then we are involved in a war with Syria, Iran and Russia IN Syria. What do you think happens to citizens across the country then? 

Assad doesn't care about this. He knows that he has Iran and Russia on his side and he doesn't care for his citizens. If we take out Assad, what happens then? ISIS takes over? If we weaken Assad, ISIS will get stronger. It's a highly complex situation, one that involves innocent citizens, US military, our allies in the area, and quiet possibly surrounding countries that would feel the impact of a strengthening of ISIS. 

This also didn't show North Korea anything, Do you think that psycho dictator is going to curtail his nuclear program because of some attack in the Middle East? We don't want to get in a war with North Korea either! That's all we need, to be involved in two Vietnam type civil wars at once. No one wins in these situations. 

 

On 7/4/2017 at 2:38 PM, Whispering said:

That's what a Republican Congress forced Obama to do. Maybe if they allowed some military intervention before Russia and Iran got so involved and before the country has fallen into civil war between multiple groups, we might not be in this mess, to this extent. 

BTW, we are doing something. Fighting ISIS. Now, we will be fighting to strengthen ISIS. Will you condemn the Republicans when this happens? 

And that's all you have to say? Are you interested in a discussion or are you going to keep repeating the same five of six sentences in various combinations? This technique reminds me of someone...a certain Orange someone. 

 

On 7/4/2017 at 3:50 PM, Florian said:

You sent a message to every nation : Trump administration is THAT messy that it can't even follow international rights. I guess Trump didn't read that chapter of "President for dummies".

And the whole american politic spectrum agreeing with that just show how stupid your officials are. I hope an investigation will be made and the US punished by the UN.

lol, love u

[Whispering 18,865]

11 hours ago, MelbHawker said:

I see your point, but I don't think the US has based it's strikes/attacks on other nations purely on whether or not it's armed forces were being threatened at the time. 

As for Syria being a sovereign nation.. I don't think that is reason enough for a strike not to happen on the US's behalf, regardless of any legalities - we're talking about a corrupt government that is chemically killing it's citizens. It's a sovereign nation's right to govern as it pleases, but when that government is truly corrupt and lead by a dangerous war criminal/terrorist... I'm sorry but Syria's sovereignty should not and is not saving it from international intervention. Assad is a terrorist by definition. 

Of course not, but Presidents are supposed to get permission from Congress in that case.

It's not a reason, unless the President didn't get the approval of Congress. Syria is a nation, not a terrorist group...therefore the US has set up different expectations and guidelines for the two.

[Whispering 18,865]

11 hours ago, MelbHawker said:

Taking out a base in Syria which housed chemical weapons used to kill innocent citizens of the nation is not strengthening ISIS at all; chemical weapons are one of the many weapons ISIS use to damage their opponents. What do you think would occur if ISIS overthrow Assad and take hold of Syria? They'd have direct access to all of Syria's armed forces. I'm here for the US contributing in destroying such forces. It's to the disadvantage of both Assad/ISIS. 

The US didn't take out a base. They took out a few planes that were left for repair and used for parts. It was a show, not an attack that stopped planes from taking off. In fact, they were taking off today and Assad has been bombing citizens today. 

My comment that you replied to stated that I was referring to a war situation, not a one off strike. Well yeah, it's a **** situation. Either way is disastrous. That's why no one knows what to do. 

[MelbHawker 6,583]

21 hours ago, PartySick said:

We didn't take it out though  it's a scratch at best. Within 24 hours, planes were still taking off from it because no actual damage was done aside from a few planes 

And I believe Whispering is saying that if we take out Assad, that's basically laying a welcome mat out for ISIS to come in and take control unless we maintain a constant military presence and basically take control ourselves which didn't work out before when we tried and it most likely wouldn't work out this time  So yeah, imo, Trump needs to meet with Obama, Hillary, and all the military advisers he can call on to devise an actual plan of attack on ISIS. Obama brought them to their knees, Trump could deliver the last blow if he played his cards right. Then we take on Assad for his crimes against humanity and deal with the resulting fallout with Russia.

That'd be the smart thing to do imo...even though I'm still against all acts of violence.

I am against acts of violence too - however, given what has already occurred, there'll continue to be violence. I've mentally accepted this sad fact. 

I know that the strike that occurred didn't take out all danger, but even a scratch - it sends a clear message to Assad (and Assad's supporters) on the US (and its' allies) stance on what is occurring in the US. ISIS, to an extent, already has a hold in Syria - I think in order for things to get better in Syria, an ISIS stronghold may be inevitable. Given the nature of their objective though, that stronghold won't linger for long. Russia surely wouldn't be supportive of Syria then. Assad needs to be removed as soon as possible.