Trump launches missiles at Syria

[Tekate]

I do not know how much plainer I can make it.

little children, women, innocent men.

But how do you keep out the terrorists who infiltrate and blend in with them from coming here?

by vetting them, which we have done. all terrorism (muslim) in America has been home grown. we open our doors and we vet and we weed out those that fail. pretty easy.

 

[Tekate]

My point is the world learned from its mistakes which is what we all hope to do. It is a delicate balance that has to be maintained. Tactical strikes on a mostly empty base is a measured response that most of the world agrees with. If it gives pause to Kim Jong Un and Assad then it succeeded. We shall see.

As far as the hypocrisy, repubs in Congress did not have faith in Obama to handle anything militarily. Their views on it were diametrically opposed and also partisan. I have full faith in Mattis and his reasoning.

Democrats have no faith in Trump.

We could knock out any missile that N Korea sends.

I doubt N Korea cares one bit about what we are doing, face it, he's itching for a war anyway. He's starved his people, killed with impunity so a war with the USA would not really seem to faze Un.

 

[Tekate]

Because they "allow" us to lead rather than take it on themselves. No one else steps up but they all condemn the actions of despots. Isn't that what we pay so much to NATO and the UN for?

the UN : The United Nations (UN) is an intergovernmental organization to promote international co-operation. A replacement for the ineffective League of Nations, the organization was established on 24 October 1945 after World War II in order to prevent another such conflict.

Maybe Trump should have gone to NATO first, why didn't he? he's not been the nicest guy about NATO.

Cheeto on NATO:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/28/donald-trump-nato-money-pouring/

 

[ruby59]

by vetting them, which we have done. all terrorism (muslim) in America has been home grown. we open our doors and we vet and we weed out those that fail. pretty easy.

How do you vet people you have no information on as is the case with many refugees from 3rd world countries?

 

[redwood66]

the UN : The United Nations (UN) is an intergovernmental organization to promote international co-operation. A replacement for the ineffective League of Nations, the organization was established on 24 October 1945 after World War II in order to prevent another such conflict.

Maybe Trump should have gone to NATO first, why didn't he? he's not been the nicest guy about NATO.

Cheeto on NATO:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/28/donald-trump-nato-money-pouring/

Because as president he doesn't have to. It was a measured and appropriate response in the works for two days. The people who needed to know did. Remember him saying multiple times he will not telegraph what his actions will be?

 

[Tekate]

How do you vet people you have no information on as is the case with many refugees from 3rd world countries?

here is what Obama did (and I assume cheeto would and said he would, do more)

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.go...screening-process-refugee-entry-united-states

CSMonitor: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2016/1005/How-the-US-vets-Syrian-refugees

Seems a very good process to me.

 

[ruby59]

I have no clue to whom this Cheeto is. If you are referring to our President, please say so.

And a poster in another thread said I had anger issues. She needs to read with a more discerning eye.

And this was explained before by Red.

What you do as a citizen as opposed to when you are President and have the weight of the world on your shoulders is quite different.

I know about Obama's red line in the sand and when it was crossed he did nothing.

The President took a very measured and appropriate response.

 

[Tekate]

Didn't you say:

Because they "allow" us to lead rather than take it on themselves. No one else steps up but they all condemn the actions of despots. Isn't that what we pay so much to NATO and the UN for?

You were asked why the USA leads and your reply was the above. I said shouldn't he have asked them.. your reply is, he doesn't have to (I knew that also)..

So is it we should step up and make decisions alone instead of going to NATO or the UN? or should we stop paying into NATO since we always set up and we 'lead'?

 

[Tekate]

I have no clue to whom this Cheeto is. If you are referring to our President, please say so.

And a poster in another thread said I had anger issues. She needs to read with a more discerning eye.

And this was explained before by Red.

What you do as a citizen as opposed to when you are President and have the weight of the world on your shoulders is quite different.

I know about Obama's red line in the sand and when it was crossed he did nothing.

The President took a very measured and appropriate response.

No we have free speech here in the USA. I can call him King Dope, Cheeto, humpty trumpty or whatever I wish and a euphemism fits here for me. The prez is not above me, he's my employee.

I expect cheeto to act in a professional manner, the weight of the world is your words, to me, he's a billionaire who is clueless, and has a trigger temper.

The weight of the world on one's shoulders are those people who are desperate and can't find a way out (money, fear, violence etc).

 

[ruby59]

No we have free speech here in the USA. I can call him King Dope, Cheeto, humpty trumpty or whatever I wish and a euphemism fits here for me. The prez is not above me, he's my employee.

I expect cheeto to act in a professional manner, the weight of the world is your words, to me, he's a billionaire who is clueless, and has a trigger temper.

The weight of the world on one's shoulders are those people who are desperate and can't find a way out (money, fear, violence etc).

Unfortunately, it is not applied unilaterally on this board.

As to the rest, that is your opinion. From what I am reading from those who do not have a chip on their shoulder, many agree with the President's action.

And if he had a so called trigger temper, his action would have been much bigger.

Even Hillary Clinton does.

 

[Tekate]

Unfortunately, it is not applied unilaterally on this board.

As to the rest, that is your opinion. From what I am reading from those who do not have a chip on their shoulder, many agree.

Even Hillary Clinton does.

Ruby, don't try to change the subject. I don't know of anyone who has stopped your or my free speech, frankly the management here is great and they show real tolerance.

So did you read what Obama did to vet refugees? what is your opinion? is it enough?? (seems to me it is but hey the prez wanted to do more - short of not helping I'm game to read what he wants to do).

Sure it's my opinion, but so is your postings, your opinions.

I dunno about the chip on the shoulder, if you name people I can reread (or read) their posts.. I'm not sure I am good at detecting chip on shoulder people without knowing the person in real life.

 

[ruby59]

Ruby, don't try to change the subject. I don't know of anyone who has stopped your or my free speech, frankly the management here is great and they show real tolerance.

So did you read what Obama did to vet refugees? what is your opinion? is it enough?? (seems to me it is but hey the prez wanted to do more - short of not helping I'm game to read what he wants to do).

Sure it's my opinion, but so is your postings, your opinions.

I dunno about the chip on the shoulder, if you name people I can reread (or read) their posts.. I'm not sure I am good at detecting chip on shoulder people without knowing the person in real life.

I was not referring to management, but our opinions on their actions differ greatly.

And is what Obama did enough? Ask that of the people who had loved ones killed or limbs blown off because of these so called home grown terrorists who traveled back to the Middle East for their indoctrination and then came back here to cause mayhem. So no Obama was very ineffective.

 

[redwood66]

Didn't you say:

Because they "allow" us to lead rather than take it on themselves. No one else steps up but they all condemn the actions of despots. Isn't that what we pay so much to NATO and the UN for?

You were asked why the USA leads and your reply was the above. I said shouldn't he have asked them.. your reply is, he doesn't have to (I knew that also)..

So is it we should step up and make decisions alone instead of going to NATO or the UN? or should we stop paying into NATO since we always set up and we 'lead'?

How do we know who he discussed it with? My comment about NATO and the UN was separate from the No one steps up one - that is for other countries and not specifically NATO and the UN. If the strike is meant to be an immediate message response to the chemical attack why on earth would you telegraph your response by waiting on the UN to make a confab to argue merits?

 

[ruby59]

+1 Red.

I never understood the stupidity of some Presidents laying out on air exactly what they were going to do.

 

[redwood66]

Nikki Haley's comments to the UN.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-atrocities-in-public-view-at-un-session.html

 

[t-c]

This is from the NY Times (The Interpreter) on the many things that need to be considered with every action. I think many here tend to see each situation apart from others, when in reality everything is connected so that our responses are almost always compromises.

I don't know whether the bombing is right or wrong, but what is right is giving refuge to Syrians fleeing their country. Vet them up the wazoo to appease the security anxious, but we cannot close our country to them.

When President Trump ordered dozens of cruise missiles launched at a Syrian air base, he was, whether he knew it or not, testing a theory that has long drawn skepticism among scholars of war.

That theory: that the United States can fundamentally alter an adversary’s strategic calculus — at little cost and with little risk of American deaths or a tit-for-tat cycle of violence — with limited, symbolic and punitive strikes.

In this case, the United States was seeking to change the reasoning that apparently led Bashar al-Assad, Syria’s leader, to use chemical weapons and the calculus that leads Russia to support his moves.

But political scientists say such low-cost, high-return military action may not be possible, particularly in the context of Syria. Mr. Assad has repeatedly demonstrated that he is willing to bear costs far greater than temporarily losing a single airfield and the Russian government has repeatedly demonstrated that it can compensate for far greater setbacks.

Caitlin Talmadge, a George Washington University political scientist who studies the dynamics of war, said Mr. Trump faced a “conundrum”: Mr. Assad and his Russian backers already face multiple imminent threats to the survival of the Syrian government.

Either Mr. Trump could impose strikes so damaging that they exceed those other threats, forcing Syria and Russia to change strategies but at the risk of triggering significant escalation within Syria and without, or he could impose strikes that fall short, virtually ensuring that other problems take priority.

Mr. Trump appears to have chosen the latter.

The end result may not be so different from the Obama administration’s decision, in 2013, to stand down from similar strikes — a message that Mr. Assad faces relatively low costs for using chemical weapons, costs he could now deem acceptable.

Limited: Short of War, Short of Change

The careful calibration of American strikes, though apparently intended to avoid escalation, appears to have left both Mr. Assad’s military capability and his strategic reasoning intact.

A single damaged airfield is relatively easy to repair, analysts say, and Russia’s air force can compensate for any destroyed Syrian planes. Syrian chemical weapons were not targeted out of an apparent desire to avoid setting them into Syria’s winds.

To force Mr. Assad to re-orient his strategic priorities, Ms. Talmadge said, American strikes would need to clear a daunting bar: credibly threatening the survival of the Syrian government.

“We know that regime and personal survival are what Assad cares about the most, so if the United States wants to alter his calculus, we have to threaten those priorities,” Ms. Talmadge said.

This does not necessarily require bringing about leadership change, but rather some action that would significantly erode the government’s ability to survive, such as heavy strikes against the capital. It could also mean so extensively destroying Syrian military infrastructure and hardware that it left Mr. Assad unable to fully defend against the opposition.

Such action would also need to threaten to overwhelm the Russian support that props up Mr. Assad. This would require either exceeding what Russian forces could match — a high bar, given the country’s enormous military capabilities — or imposing costs on the Russian government that exceed whatever gain it sees in Syria.

And any effective strikes would need to do all this without provoking a response that would erase their benefits or bring intolerable costs.

These requirements mean such a plan is something like the holy grail of Syria policy, long sought but never found.

Punitive: What Does It Take to Alter Behavior?

The Trump administration, in calibrating strikes, faced two bad choices. Declining to impose an existential threat on Mr. Assad means the attack extracted only a symbolic — and bearable — cost for the use of chemical weapons by Syria.

But had the United States imposed an existential threat on Mr. Assad’s government, it would also, Ms. Talmadge said, have forced him and his Russian sponsors to escalate in response.

This would not be driven by machismo or a desire to save face, but by the stark logic of warfare.

If Syria and Russia believe they are operating against extreme risk with little margin for error, then survival compels them to compensate against new existential threats.

The study of war suggests this would take two forms: escalating against the United States, to outmatch the threat of American-instigated leadership change, and on the Syrian battlefield to make up for Mr. Assad’s reduced strength against the opposition.

“Once you go down this path, it’s quite unpredictable,” said Michael Wahid Hanna, a scholar at The Century Foundation. Mr. Assad and Moscow, he added, “are then in control of how escalation could proceed.”

Mr. Assad has repeatedly compensated for battlefield setbacks by targeting civilians, which weakens the opposition. Russia has shown that, by shipping in its own forces, it can match any as-yet conceivable escalation.

It is unclear how far Russia would escalate in matching any American threat to its Syrian ally, but it has shown it places a high value on Mr. Assad’s survival.

In any escalation contest, the winner is determined not just by capability — a metric by which the United States would win, though Russia could come close — but willingness to accept costs and risks.

This is not an issue of steely-eyed resolve but of raw cost-benefit. For Russia, the survival of the Syrian government is an issue of tremendous strategic importance.

For the United States, the strategic imperative appears more modest. Mr. Trump has said he was motivated by images of civilians killed in recent chemical attacks. While analysts have long warned that Syria’s conflict could destabilize the region and even Europe, Mr. Trump has dismissed those risks as of little concern to the United States and has questioned the value of European unity.

He appears to have pursued a strategy, then, in line with his sense of American stakes in Syria. Because Mr. Assad and Moscow see far higher stakes, they have shown they will go further and maintain control over the conflict.

Symbolic: A Message, but to Whom?

The value of strikes, in theory, goes beyond deterring future chemical weapons use. By signaling a broader willingness to escalate, they compel Syria and Russia to voluntarily restrain their behavior for fear of stronger American action.

But this implicit threat faces the same problem as the strikes themselves. If it is credible, then it forces Mr. Assad and Moscow to both retaliate and compensate. If it is not credible, then adversaries can shrug it off, or even consider it proof that the United States will impose bearable costs.

Mr. Trump’s strikes appear to fall into the latter category.

Daniel Byman, a scholar at the Brookings Institution, wrote in an article for the website LawFare that “such actions often are painted as ‘symbolic,’ but in reality they usually signal weakness, not resolve.”

This is because the target, he wrote, “suffers little but often looks stronger because they survived a U.S. attack and can boast about their defiance.”

Compounding this risk, administration officials have communicated conflicting messages about American aims in Syria.

This is the promise and peril of symbolic strikes: they are an attention-getting but imprecise means to deliver a message about what the United States is or is not willing to do.

“Our dilemma here is trying to get into the minds of Syrian decision-makers,” Mr. Hanna, of The Century Foundation, said.

But two administrations have already failed to anticipate Syrian chemical weapons use and Russian escalations, he added, suggesting that American policy makers may not understand Syrian or Russian decision-making well enough to anticipate how they read American strikes.

Some may hope that the strikes send a message beyond the Syrian conflict, perhaps to North Korea or its allies in the Chinese government. This is sometimes described as “credibility” — the idea that standing up to one adversary will cause others to take threats more seriously.

However, this notion did not emerge from the formal study of war, and appears to be based on a misappropriation of the formal definition of credibility, which refers to something else. Repeated academic investigations of credibility, as it is used colloquially, have found that it does not exist; military action in one part of the world has no proven capability to change the behavior of adversaries elsewhere.

Mr. Trump’s strikes also carry domestic symbolic meaning.

A 1996 study by Alastair Smith, a New York University political scientist, found that democratically elected leaders “are more likely to become involved in war early in their electoral term.”

If a government becomes unpopular or faces domestic political problems, then this makes it, whether consciously or not, “biased toward violent, adventurous foreign policy projects.”

Voters tend to reward such action, Mr. Smith found, regardless of whether it achieves its objectives and as long as it avoids unacceptable costs. If Mr. Trump’s strikes go no further, that is where they may succeed.

 

[AnnaH]

tc, the article you posted makes good points. But we just don't know how this will play out, imo.
If supporters are correct, I think the most we can hope for is that Assad will cease chemical attacks. If detractors are right, then I think our best hope is that Trump's action will mean no more than Obama's inaction.
The Hitler comparisons and the refugee argument, I just can't right now.
Let's hope the supporters are correct on this one.

 

[ruby59]

tc, the article you posted makes good points. But we just don't know how this will play out, imo.
If supporters are correct, I think the most we can hope for is that Assad will cease chemical attacks. If detractors are right, then I think our best hope is that Trump's action will mean no more than Obama's inaction.
The Hitler comparisons and the refugee argument, I just can't right now.
Let's hope the supporters are correct on this one.

9/11 changed everything.

 

[Tekate]

How do we know who he discussed it with? My comment about NATO and the UN was separate from the No one steps up one - that is for other countries and not specifically NATO and the UN. If the strike is meant to be an immediate message response to the chemical attack why on earth would you telegraph your response by waiting on the UN to make a confab to argue merits?

I dunno, I was questioning your remark on we pay big bucks to the UN and NATO. What would I do? I would accept all Syrians as refugees, vet them and give them safe haven. If proven that the Syrian government had gassed their own citizens, I would talk to my NATO allies, get a consensus opinion and unite and follow thru.

 

[Tekate]

tc, the article you posted makes good points. But we just don't know how this will play out, imo.
If supporters are correct, I think the most we can hope for is that Assad will cease chemical attacks. If detractors are right, then I think our best hope is that Trump's action will mean no more than Obama's inaction.
The Hitler comparisons and the refugee argument, I just can't right now.
Let's hope the supporters are correct on this one.

By inaction you mean when the republican congress would not support Mr Obama?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...erage&pgtype=article&region=EndOfArticle&_r=0

http://www.gallup.com/poll/164282/support-syria-action-lower-past-conflicts.aspx

from the above: Democrats Divided on Action; Republicans and Independents Opposed

 

[Tekate]

I was not referring to management, but our opinions on their actions differ greatly.

And is what Obama did enough? Ask that of the people who had loved ones killed or limbs blown off because of these so called home grown terrorists who traveled back to the Middle East for their indoctrination and then came back here to cause mayhem. So no Obama was very ineffective.

I don't think Obama was ineffective, what do you want? WWIII? you want nuckes flying? Obama did not do what Cheeto did because Congress did not support him.. so sue him because the republicans instead of working WITH Obama, spent 8 years working against him.. the guy can hold his head up high.. right now the conservative wing of the 'republican party' is going beserk because he's involving us AGAIN in a middle east fiasco.. So fine, if you feel we should bomb Syria but not take in their refugees you live with that, I can't.

Home grown terrorists are radicalized by watching vids on the web or attending mosques that have radical imans.. not many here in the USA. Let's see what happens with ISIS and Bashir, should be a good sh== show.

 

[OreoRosies86]

I don't think Obama was ineffective, what do you want? WWIII? you want nuckes flying? Obama did not do what Cheeto did because Congress did not support him.. so sue him because the republicans instead of working WITH Obama, spent 8 years working against him.. the guy can hold his head up high.. right now the conservative wing of the 'republican party' is going beserk because he's involving us AGAIN in a middle east fiasco.. So fine, if you feel we should bomb Syria but not take in their refugees you live with that, I can't.

Home grown terrorists are radicalized by watching vids on the web or attending mosques that have radical imans.. not many here in the USA. Let's see what happens with ISIS and Bashir, should be a good sh== show.

Well said.

 

[monarch64]

This is a really informative 5 minute video on how things got to this point, going back to 2011. It's very concise and seems to be unbiased, though I know nothing about Ezra Klein.

(forgot to add the link, whoops.)

Tekate, instead of quoting I just wanted to say I agree with you regarding the POTUS working for us and not being above the people. This isn't a monarchy or a dictatorship. We pay for that person to be in office and as an elected official his constituents are his employers/bosses. It continues to be ridiculous to me that people demand he be "respected" and that it's nothing short of blasphemy to call him unflattering nicknames. Uh oh, there goes my nonconformist, anti-authority attitude talking again...so thankful for freedom of speech.

 

[ruby59]

I don't think Obama was ineffective, what do you want? said Tekate

Remember that red line in the sand where Obama believed Syria had destroyed all its chemical weapons.

Well, it looks like Obama was dead wrong.

 

[AnnaH]

Kate, I'm aware that Obama was unable to gather public, legislative, or allies ' support for military action against Assad.
I haven't taken a position because I don't know what the US should do.

 

[Dancing Fire]

I don't think Obama was ineffective, what do you want? said Tekate

Remember that red line in the sand where Obama believed Syria had destroyed all its chemical weapons.

Well, it looks like Obama was dead wrong.

Yup, put up or shut up!

 

[Tekate]

I don't think Obama was ineffective, what do you want? said Tekate

Remember that red line in the sand where Obama believed Syria had destroyed all its chemical weapons.

Well, it looks like Obama was dead wrong.

Ruby, Obama went to Congress and they said NO.. what more can be done.. he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. Many republicans did NOT support him.. please read my pointers. there's another good article today in the times about how republicans would not back him. The American people did not want us the US involved in a middle east war.. he did what was counseled to him.. So what .. now we have quick draw mccheeto.. so now the russians have moved closer to our ships.. man up baby.. this is going to be a real scary time. republicans like republican wars - sadly.

 

[Tekate]

Yup, put up or shut up!

So tell me DF, why DIDN'T Obama use force? have you read about.. have you seen that good old doddering McConnell wouldn't support him... what IF he had done what Trump did.. would you have been posting... would you have supported him? doubt it.

 

[Tekate]

Kate, I'm aware that Obama was unable to gather public, legislative, or allies ' support for military action against Assad.
I haven't taken a position because I don't know what the US should do.

gotcha Anna and thank you.

 

[OreoRosies86]

Obama had to go through the proper channels with Congress and the Republicans blocking his every move while Trump sent out tweets about how he should be handling Syria and calling him a Kenyan.