The US has bombed Syria to punish it for a chemical attack

[Steve Petersen]

so...to show the Syrian people we care them and the attacks on them we...shoot missiles at them?
tulc(any chance of the US taking in more Syrian refugees?)

What's your solution then?

 

[tulc]

What's your solution then?

well...not dropping 100 missiles on them would be a start.
tulc(just a thought)

 

[zelosravioli]

I can't say whether I agree or disagree with 'this' particular strike, but I understand that the USA 'must' always be involved at some point, now and then whether we want to or not. Because the West must, and does, restrain these aggressive regimes (China, Russia, etc) from aggression, just by occasionally engaging them. If not they would attempt to advance themselves (and every so often they do attempt to advance themselves).

"How is it that nobody cares when 10s of thousands of people are dieing from bullets but its sub-human for 100 people to die from chemicals?" (akadescribe)
It is likely that these strikes were long planned in advance (as in, these have likely been targets for several years), the targets were the chemical weapons plants/materials buildings. It is not the number of people killed in a 'recent' attack, but the 'possibility' of mass death/super high death counts that some future chemical weapons can produce (ie no one has died recently from a nuclear bomb, but lessening the possibilities of such weapon manufacturing, is better done sooner than later.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Quoting a friend of mine.

No problem is ever ”solved”. Problems ignored, almost always worsen. Isolationism allowed the rise of the Third Reich.

Any blight that people are willing to ignore in distant neighborhoods, will eventually encroach on their own neighborhood. Evil left unchecked, always multiplies.

If France and Brittain had honored their defense treaties with Poland when Stalin and Hitler coordinated their invasion thereof, Hitler‘s war machine would have been crippled and history changed for the better. Germany shifted 90% of its military assets toward that invasion, leaving the Fatherland virtually undefended. Simply occupying the undefeated German homeland, would have ended Hitler’s rise to greater power. After Poland‘s “allies” abandoned them, Hitler was able to consolidate power and redistribute his military assets, multiplying them with the economic gains from the invasion and the continued confiscation of Jewish wealth. Yet Isolationist sentiment in Europe and the US allowed the initial solutions for Germany’s “Jewish problem” to evolve into the “final solution” that will forever stand as one of humanity’s biggest shames.
​

Churchill says essentially this in his memoirs of WWII.

 

[marineimaging]

Just confused. How is it that nobody cares when 10s of thousands of people are dieing from bullets but its sub-human for 100 people to die from chemicals?

Believe it or not being humane and exercising some form of ethics, although it sounds stupid and makes no sense, is part of the Conventions of war. The world powers have absolutely rejected any form of chemical warfare because it attacks only the people, causes excruciating sickness and pain before death, and is not discriminating in the least. The barrel bombs delivering the lethal gas are not property destroying bombs so they have only one reason to be used and that is to kill the people while keeping the standing factories and homes and transportation etc., intact. It is a tool of genocide and it is absolutely forbidden. So, for a country to use it means that they have no care about the outcome and screams of the civilians who are not fighting them. In this case it was used because the opposition was gaining ground and would not give up.

 

[marineimaging]

It's about time.

There is no way the majors of the UN could sit by and let this go unanswered. I know that they had to get others on board but if I heard correctly it was the French that brought the evidence to the table and they all agreed that based on what was before them they didn't need to wait until the investigating party finished dragging their feet to deliver an assessment.

 

[Phil 1:21]

I find it odd the number of folks I see on Facebook who've been calling Trump Hitler for the past year and a half, and now support a dictator who gasses people he doesn't like.

 

[Followers4christ]

This is how world wars start.

let's see here.

Those who supports the strike:

United States
United Kingdom
Germany
France
Spain
Australia
Japan
Israel
Turkey
Canada
Poland
Italy
Saudi Arabia
Jordan
United Arab Emirates

Those who do not support the strike:

Syria
China
Russia
Iran
Iraq

Most seem to support the strike so a world war is unlikely. Here is a video from a man in Syria and his view on this strike.

 

[Followers4christ]

so...to show the Syrian people we care them and the attacks on them we...shoot missiles at them?
tulc(any chance of the US taking in more Syrian refugees?)

That's not accurate or honest. We are bombing military targets that targeted them (the civilians). It's like a school shooting where we target the shooter to protect the students, then you claim we were shooting at them indicating everyone was targeted which would be dishonest. Syria targeted civilians so we targeted the ones responsible for launching the attack. If we targeted civilians for the attack on civilians then you would have a case.

Also look at the video I posted on a Syrian man about the strike in my last post.

 

[Followers4christ]

I find it odd the number of folks I see on Facebook who've been calling Trump Hitler for the past year and a half, and now support a dictator who gasses people he doesn't like.

That's very true. There is no proof that Trump is racist or the next Hitler, yet everyone spreads that garbage. Then they support a man who gasses his own people and has a history of violence against civilians.

 

[tulc]

(snip)
Here is a video from a man in Syria and his view on this strike.
(snip) (emph. added)

uhmmm...did you happen to notice the date on that video?
tulc(is just wondering)

 

[kiwimac]

This will be about oil and isolating Iran. Nothing more or less.

 

[kiwimac]

That's very true. There is no proof that Trump is racist or the next Hitler, yet everyone spreads that garbage. Then they support a man who gasses his own people and has a history of violence against civilians.

Proof please? The UN clearly believes otherwise.

 

[Followers4christ]

uhmmm...did you happen to notice the date on that video?
tulc(is just wondering)

Yes I did it was after a chemical attack on civilians and under Trump we attacked Syria. Then it happened again to be met with another strike. Then people act surprised.

2017 Shayrat missile strike - Wikipedia

 

[tulc]

Yes I did it was after a chemical attack on civilians and under Trump we attacked Syria. Then it happened again to be met with another strike. Then people act surprised.
(snip)

Just for clarity sake it might have been good to point out it wasn't actually about "this" strike.
tulc(as Follower4christ's post said it was)

 

[Followers4christ]

Proof please? The UN clearly believes otherwise.

It's not hard to find out. Here are a few links:

World reacts to overnight strikes on Syria by US, UK and French forces

Who's with the US on Syria strike and who isn't - CNN

Which Countries Support and Which Oppose the U.S. Missile Strikes in Syria


The UN on this issue:

UN rejects Russia’s bid to condemn air strikes on Syria - France 24

The UN Security Council rejects Russia's resolution to condemn the US-led strikes on Syria

 

[Followers4christ]

Just for clarity sake it might have been good to point out it wasn't actually about "this" strike.
tulc(as Follower4christ's post said it was)

Yes I should of been more careful on posting. I usually get all the facts before posting. But in this case I read about it but did not correct my post before sending which was a mistake on my part. At least I will acknowledge my mistakes.

On the issue of the strikes it was the right thing to do as Syria has no respect for life as they continue to launch attacks on civilians.

 

[Followers4christ]

well...not dropping 100 missiles on them would be a start.
tulc(just a thought)

Never answered the question. The question was what is your solution not what is not your solution.

It's easy to say what we wouldn't do when you are not on the spot but it's a lot harder to make the tough decisions when your the one who has to make the tough calls. In the end of the day it was the right call and at least somebody is acting at punishing those responsible for these attacks on civilians. While everyone else is just claiming what they wouldn't do with no solutions.

 

[tulc]

Never answered the question. The question was what is your solution not what is not your solution.

Not shooting missiles at them seemed like a way to good start. Sometimes? Establishing what NOT to do is a good way to start. You would think the fact that the first round of missiles not succeeding would have been an indication of what wasn't going to work this time either. It also would have been better to establish some clear goals for what they want to happen. For instance why are we getting involved? I'm not saying we shouldn't be involved in helping, but why now? And why, if we're so concerned with helping aren't doing more we could be doing that doesn't involve shooting missiles at them? We could take more refugees for one thing. No missiles involved there, right? That might have been a good way to start helping. Seen this from last year?
The best way the US could help Syrians: open the borders

On Thursday night, President Donald Trump announced that the US had launched strikes against the regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad in retaliation for Assad's use of the chemical weapon sarin in an attack that killed dozens of civilians. "No child of God," Trump said in a statement, "should ever suffer such horror."

But the damage has already been done — and America, including President Trump himself, is already deeply culpable. Not because the US has shown undue hesitancy in dropping bombs on Syria before now, but because of its refusal to let Syrians help themselves by allowing more refugees to move to the United States. Expanding refugee resettlement would certainly work, would carry little in the way of short-term financial costs, and that would likely provide a powerful boost to the US economy and drastically increase the living standards of Syrians who were able to relocate. Instead, Trump has sought to slash the number of Syrians allowed to come to the US — while dropping bombs on Syria itself.

Or this from THIS year?
The US has all but slammed the door on Syrian refugees

President Donald Trump and his administration are still deciding whether and how to escalate the US’s military presence in Syria, after another chemical weapons attack on Syrian civilians that has been linked (though not definitively) to the forces of President Bashar al-Assad. But there’s a basic recognition that the war is horrific and it needs to end soon.

Defense Secretary James Mattis illustrated the horror of the Syrian conflict Thursday by telling the House Armed Services Committee, “I’ve seen refugees from Asia to Europe, Kosovo to Africa. I’ve never seen refugees as traumatized as coming out of Syria. It’s got to end.”

But while the plight of the 5.5 million refugees who have fled Syria is apparently a factor in US policy, it doesn’t appear to be inspiring the Trump administration to let in very many refugees.

In the last years of the Obama administration, the US resettled tens of thousands of Syrian refugees. When Trump took office, that number plummeted — partly because of the 120-day “refugee ban” that prevented nearly any refugees from being brought into the US over the summer of 2017, and partly because of specific scrutiny facing refugees from several countries, including Syria.

The result is that the US is on pace to resettle fewer than 100 Syrian refugees in the fiscal year that ends September 30. And it might not even be that many.

It's easy to say what we wouldn't do when you are not on the spot but it's a lot harder to make the tough decisions when your the one who has to make the tough calls.

Gosh, who would have thought a d-level reality tv show host with no experience in world politics or any real desire to learn from the people who came before him wouldn't be the right sort of person to be the President of the United States in difficult times like this? Who could have seen there being any sort of problem with that?

In the end of the day it was the right call and at least somebody is acting at punishing those responsible for these attacks on civilians.

Yes because it was clearly established before shooting the missiles at them it was those guys who did the attacks. Could you post that evidence?
tulc(thinks that would be of interest to us all)

 

[Followers4christ]

Not shooting missiles at them seemed like a way to good start. Sometimes? Establishing what NOT to do is a good way to start. You would think the fact that the first round of missiles not succeeding would have been an indication of what wasn't going to work this time either. It also would have been better to establish some clear goals for what they want to happen. For instance why are we getting involved? I'm not saying we shouldn't be involved in helping, but why now? And why, if we're so concerned with helping aren't doing more we could be doing that doesn't involve shooting missiles at them? We could take more refugees for one thing. No missiles involved there, right? That might have been a good way to start helping. Seen this from last year?
The best way the US could help Syrians: open the borders

Or this from THIS year?
The US has all but slammed the door on Syrian refugees




Gosh, who would have thought a d-level reality tv show host with no experience in world politics or any real desire to learn from the people who came before him wouldn't be the right sort of person to be the President of the United States in difficult times like this? Who could have seen there being any sort of problem with that?


Yes because it was clearly established before shooting the missiles at them it was those guys who did the attacks. Could you post that evidence?
tulc(thinks that would be of interest to us all)

There are a couple of good points you made in this post like I agree clear goals are always needed to achieve those goals. The other good point you brought up is doing more for the Syrian people.

But the problems with your point of views are a open border will not stop Syria from attacking it's own people and would cause our own country to be put at risk without solving anything. A open border is never the answer both Obama Administration and the current Trump Administration both agree with these facts as with terrorism it puts Americans lives at risk. We have to be careful to who we give citizenship to and have a process to let the right ones in which I think we already have. On this issue Trump is doing a great job at closing the holes at illegals coming in and being more careful who is let in to our country.

Everyone knows it was them as they used chemical weapons earlier this month. Here are some useful articles:

Factbox: What is known about suspected chemical weapons attack in...

Syria: chemical weapons inspectors barred from Douma site

US says it has proof Assad's regime carried out Douma gas attack

Syria 'chemical attack': What we know

What we know about the suspected gas attack in Douma, Syria