BigRedBuster Posted April 6, 2017 Author Share Posted April 6, 2017 I am against military action in Syria. I am OK with supporting other countries getting involved if they want to send their sons and daughters into that mess. We have all the military infrastructure in place to help other countries. If England, Germany, France....etc...want to get involved..... The bigger issue with this is that it's one more example of what an idiot he has been on the entire issue. It's like he has all of a sudden had an epiphany on how bad Al-Assad is. Link to comment
knapplc Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 Trump needs a distraction from the Russia hearings and Nunes having to recuse himself, so he throws this statement out there. It commits nothing, the base loves it, and it gives those who don't want to talk about Nunes something else to talk about. 1 Link to comment
Moiraine Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 The reason he supposedly has had an epiphany is because he so hates Obama that he couldn't imagine that anything he ever did or said was correct. For example not wanting to support Assad with Russia. Link to comment
GM_Tood Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 "Military Action" means boots on the ground? Runways/hangars/etc...airstrike the f out of them. Maybe Trump should look to Russia as the previous administration did to broker a deal to cut the Syrian wmd stockpile? That worked. Link to comment
zoogs Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 Whom are we airstriking the eff out of? First, we've already been doing that: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/22/world/middleeast/syria-us-airstrike.html?_r=0 Second, Assad is being supported by Russia. Are you suggesting we use airstrikes to take down his regime? Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 The reason he supposedly has had an epiphany is because he so hates Obama that he couldn't imagine that anything he ever did or said was correct. For example not wanting to support Assad with Russia. He's so dead-set on being anti-Obama that he's not willing to listen to THIS GENIUS? 1 Link to comment
Moiraine Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 "Military Action" means boots on the ground? Runways/hangars/etc...airstrike the f out of them. Maybe Trump should look to Russia as the previous administration did to broker a deal to cut the Syrian wmd stockpile? That worked. Do you want another Vietnam? Russia is on Assad's side and has been throughout. And they've been killing thousands of civilians the whole time. Link to comment
GM_Tood Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 "Military Action" means boots on the ground? Runways/hangars/etc...airstrike the f out of them. Maybe Trump should look to Russia as the previous administration did to broker a deal to cut the Syrian wmd stockpile? That worked. Do you want another Vietnam? Russia is on Assad's side and has been throughout. And they've been killing thousands of civilians the whole time. Right, because we have never thrown airstrikes on countries that have some sort of Russian backing. So the US stance should be - sit back and let other countries handle it. I could be down for that. America First. Link to comment
Moiraine Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 "Military Action" means boots on the ground? Runways/hangars/etc...airstrike the f out of them. Maybe Trump should look to Russia as the previous administration did to broker a deal to cut the Syrian wmd stockpile? That worked. Do you want another Vietnam? Russia is on Assad's side and has been throughout. And they've been killing thousands of civilians the whole time. Right, because we have never thrown airstrikes on countries that have some sort of Russian backing. So the US stance should be - sit back and let other countries handle it. I could be down for that. America First. I might've misread. I thought you were saying we should send ground troops. But like zoogs said we've been bombing ISIS for a long time. Are you saying to bomb Assad's forces? What are the examples of us bombing countries that Russia is actively involved in militarily, post cold war. And I don't mean sending weapons. I mean engaged with them. Link to comment
GM_Tood Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 Yeah, I meant no ground troops...airstrikes only. Syria Libya Somalia Yemen Each of the above countries have/had "some sort" of Russian backing when US dropped bombs on them. Full on military involvement, none that I could come up with other than Syria. Link to comment
Moiraine Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 Yeah, I meant no ground troops...airstrikes only. Syria Libya Somalia Yemen Each of the above countries have/had "some sort" of Russian backing when US dropped bombs on them. Full on military involvement, none that I could come up with other than Syria. That's part of why I made the comparison to Vietnam. I admittedly don't know if Russia has anyone on the ground there or if they are flying planes from within Syria but if we attacked Assad's ilk we might kill Russians. I'm not 100% against getting more involved but whenever people say things like "bomb the sh#t out of them" it makes me think they didn't consider the repurcussions. Also, I feel like Trump has the same attitude. I don't think he thinks about the consequences of his actions, so the thought of him being in charge of this decision or anywhere near tactical discussions is frightening. Link to comment
knapplc Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 What would be the best thing to do, Tood? Link to comment
GM_Tood Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 What would be the best thing to do, Tood? I think airstrikes against military targets, including airfields and planes. I don't see any other option that does not involve military action. We can't sit back and let Russia dictate the world's role in this region/Syria. If not for the use of Chemical weapons, then I think it would have been same ol same ol for our involvement in Syria. Kinda sad imo. Link to comment
Recommended Posts