U.S. shoots 50-60 Tomahawk Missiles at Assad's Airforce

[leibowde84]

I've gotta say, I'm happy with Trump for this. I'm glad we attacked and I'm glad we acted quickly.

But, Russian military was most likely there, so this could erupt into a bigger conflict.

What are your thoughts?

 

[psychoslice]

Yep, get in first, and knock em down before they know what's going on.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I think continuing to escalate in the middle-east will not bring stability for the victims in the long run, and it will be used to further justify increased budget spending which is actively taking away from domestic spending we need to do. We're not nearly as good at this as we think we are.

 

[columbus]

As much as I despise dictators like Assad I don't see how bringing him down will improve anything. Once again, the USA is using military force to meddle in things we are better off leaving alone.

We should GTFO. We should get over the idea that Syrians want something else. We should learn from the Iraq debacle and not topple dictators who can at least provide some stability. Or we are likely to leave Syria without even that, like Iraq.
Tom

 

[leibowde84]

I think continuing to escalate in the middle-east will not bring stability for the victims in the long run, and it will be used to further justify increased budget spending which is actively taking away from domestic spending we need to do. We're not nearly as good at this as we think we are.

But, can we really just sit back and do nothing while Assad uses chemical weapons against innocent civilians?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

But, can we really just sit back and do nothing while Assad uses chemical weapons against innocent civilians?

There's no shortage of rulers world wide who do despicable things to their people. We only care about ones in the middle East, as opposed to Africa or South America, because we have interests there. But we will not succeed at being world police. So far every time we've tried to topple a dictator in the ME, a new and more terrible one just takes its place.

 

[psychoslice]

But, can we really just sit back and do nothing while Assad uses chemical weapons against innocent civilians?

Yes of course not, they have broken the rules, they are war criminals and need to be dealt with.

 

[leibowde84]

There's no shortage of rulers world wide who do despicable things to their people. We only care about ones in the middle East, as opposed to Africa or South America, because we have interests there. But we will not succeed at being world police. So far every time we've tried to topple a dictator in the ME, a new and more terrible one just takes its place.

But, what other dictators have used chemical weapons on their own people recently?

 

[icehorse]

Instead of wading in ourselves, we have to put HUGE pressure on regional leaders to intervene in this sort of situation. We should support and pressure our allies, but not lead the charge.

 

[Mindmaster]

I've gotta say, I'm happy with Trump for this. I'm glad we attacked and I'm glad we acted quickly.

But, Russian military was most likely there, so this could erupt into a bigger conflict.

What are your thoughts?

Buuuut....

Tomahawks are sea or ground to ground missiles...

 

[ADigitalArtist]

But, what other dictators have used chemical weapons on their own people recently?

Why does chemical weapons matter more than any number of horrible ways people are killed by their governments? And how does it change that we will ultimately fail in setting up a stable ME government for its victims?

 

[LuisDantas]

I think continuing to escalate in the middle-east will not bring stability for the victims in the long run, and it will be used to further justify increased budget spending which is actively taking away from domestic spending we need to do. We're not nearly as good at this as we think we are.

I agree. And that is before considering how awful it is for the people on the ground, as well as for the reputation of the USA.

 

[columbus]

So far every time we've tried to topple a dictator in the ME, a new and more terrible one just takes its place.

The last time we toppled one, we wound up with Daesh. I see no reason to think toppling Assad is any more likely to bring peace.

We just don't know what we are doing in the murky motivations of the region. At one point, a bunch of USA bigwigs(including John McCain) wanted to give a rebel group anti aircraft missiles to counter Assad's air superiority. It turned out the group was actually aligned with the beginnings of ISIS.
Tom

 

[columbus]

Yes of course not, they have broken the rules, they are war criminals and need to be dealt with.

Is Australia racing to the rescue?
Tom

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

I like Assad.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Also I think it's funny that just a few weeks ago we were blocking these same victims from being able to escape. Clearly the only acceptable way to 'help them' is pour missiles and hope everything sorts itself out.

 

[Mindmaster]

As much as I despise dictators like Assad I don't see how bringing him down will improve anything. Once again, the USA is using military force to meddle in things we are better off leaving alone.

We should GTFO. We should get over the idea that Syrians want something else. We should learn from the Iraq debacle and not topple dictators who can at least provide some stability. Or we are likely to leave Syria without even that, like Iraq.
Tom

Firing missiles that cost $500,000+ each into a sand dune has no relevance to US security. This is much less about Syria and much more about a show of force to North Korea.

 

[leibowde84]

Why does chemical weapons matter more than any number of horrible ways people are killed by their governments? And how does it change that we will ultimately fail in setting up a stable ME government for its victims?

Well, for starters, they aren't localized nearly as much as conventional weapons. Their effects are tantamount to torture, and it is unavoidable that large populations of civilians will be affected by them, no matter how carefully they are aimed. I mean, not even the nazis used them ... actually no one did during WWII because of how devastating their effects were in WWI.

I think they should be off limits no matter what. And, Assad is not just using chemical weapons, he is using them against civilians. When we drop bombs, we do what we can to minimize civilian casualties. There are, obviously, unavoidable civilian casualties, but the point is that they are avoided as best we can. The use of chemical weapons means that civilian casualties are not being avoided at all.

In regards to leaving them leaderless, I'm not sure what you mean by that. We didn't assassinate Assad. He is still alive and kicking. We just sent him a message that the use of chemical weapons will have consequences militarily.

 

[leibowde84]

Buuuut....

Tomahawks are sea or ground to ground missiles...

So, what's your point?

 

[Mindmaster]

So, what's your point?

It was a joke, but you missed it...

Firing ground missiles at planes... yadda..