EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 7290
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23470 Posts
On April 07 2017 11:23 LegalLord wrote: Russia has their own airbase. The only sense in which it's Russian equipment is that it's old Soviet stuff from ages past that Syria now has. This is the base that was bombed Russia is planning on expanding an Assad regime air base in central Syria into a second base of operations for Moscow's air assets in the war-torn country, various sources report. The new base will be located southeast of Homs at the current Syrian military base of Shaayrat Source But maybe they got the good stuff out after notice. In which case it's mostly an inconvenience which is what it was going to be whether Trump or Clinton did it. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4862 Posts
On April 07 2017 11:22 Plansix wrote: Yeah, attacking other governments with no congressional authorization is totally a thing you should just do. Its cool and wouldn't end with the Republicans whining about abuse of executive power. The House Republicans are a group of bitches and wouldn't even authorize a single airstrike. And now they are going to praise Trump for doing the thing they would have voted down in 2013. I called the red line idiotic and noted Trump's hypocrisy, do try to keep up. The other question to be asked is if this is the same situation as 2013 and does a "single strike" or whatever we're calling it now differ largely from the previous president's plan. Or are we going to get more or less involved than Libya, where Obama didn't go to Congress at all? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 07 2017 11:26 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Fuck me Marco Rubio who railed against Syria strikes in 2013 just said he would support putting ground troops into Syria. Of course he did. Obama is out of office. They only wanted a weak America when Obama was in charge. Now it is time for men and spending bills on military spending. Time for the US to rescue the EU from crisis. Behold the Republicans in all their glory. Party before country. Now that they are in charge, it is back to America being the leader of the free world. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 07 2017 11:28 Introvert wrote: I called the red line idiotic and noted Trump's hypocrisy, do try to keep up. The other question to be asked is if this is the same situation as 2013 and does a "single strike" or whatever we're calling it now differ largely from the previous president's plan. Or are we going to get more or less involved than Libya, where Obama didn't go to Congress at all? Libya was covered by the terrorism authorization that congress passed post 9/11, where they decided they didn't want to make decisions about how they fight terrorists. Assads government isn't a terrorist group,so it is not covered. Obama said several times that the terrorism authorization was bad and removed congress from the decision making. Since they had no skin in the game(aka, voting) they did not feel any level of responsibility to how we combated terrorism. | ||
BigFan
TLADT24920 Posts
| ||
|
lastpuritan
United States540 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On April 07 2017 11:32 Plansix wrote: Libya was covered by the terrorism authorization that congress passed post 9/11, where they decided they didn't want to make decisions about how they fight terrorists. Assads government isn't a terrorist group,so it is not covered. Obama said several times that the terrorism authorization was bad and removed congress from the decision making. Since they had no skin in the game(aka, voting) they did not feel any level of responsibility to how we combated terrorism. That and when the French and British approached the US and Obama said no they pulled the NATO card. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4862 Posts
On April 07 2017 11:33 BigFan wrote: The fact that no one sees why this is problematic and outright stupid to do is troubling. On that note, I also wish the US would stop intervening in middle eastern affairs whenever they want. The last 4 presidents at least ended up more interventionist than their campaign rhetoric. Something happens once you get there. On April 07 2017 11:32 Plansix wrote: Libya was covered by the terrorism authorization that congress passed post 9/11, where they decided they didn't want to make decisions about how they fight terrorists. Assads government isn't a terrorist group,so it is not covered. Obama said several times that the terrorism authorization was bad and removed congress from the decision making. Since they had no skin in the game(aka, voting) they did not feel any level of responsibility to how we combated terrorism. Arguable, but since this discussion is about Syria primarily I'll drop it. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On April 07 2017 11:33 BigFan wrote: The fact that no one sees why this is problematic and outright stupid to do is troubling. On that note, I also wish the US would stop intervening in middle eastern affairs whenever they want. Was stupid but we were expecting a war. Maybe we'll get one. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On April 07 2017 11:34 lastpuritan wrote: Well, no matter we like it or not. He had courage to do it while Obama and whole world stood idly for years. Now Assad will think twice before targeting civilians, this little-something is what we couldn't achieve by previous administration for years and years. It's still a GOOD JOB. more like a mixed bag. courage and stupidity can overlap a lot. to act without congressional approval/consent in waging war upon a country. also, this isn't about targetting civilians, it's about the use of chemical weapons specifically (at least ostensibly). | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23470 Posts
So if this is it for our response, this would actually be a more moderate involvement than we would have gotten with President Hillary Clinton. In her first interview since her stunning presidential election defeat by Republican rival Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton on Thursday called for the United States to bomb Syrian air fields. Clinton, in an interview at the Women in the World Summit in New York, also called Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election a theft more damaging than Watergate. Asked whether she now believes that failing to take a tougher stand against Syria was her worst foreign policy mistake as secretary of state under President Barack Obama, Clinton said she favored more aggressive action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. "I think we should have been more willing to confront Assad," Clinton said in the interview, conducted by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof. "I really believe we should have and still should take out his air fields and prevent him from being able to use them to bomb innocent people and drop sarin gas on them." Source | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18839 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
And now the Demcrats ask "So what is next?" And the other discussion, which is that there was no debate about this. Though if congress was that concerned, they can always take away the power of launch strikes like this without approval. On April 07 2017 11:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: There's a quicker way stand committed to NATO but close all the bases in Europe. The EU will be forming an Army in a fortnight. I'm sort of with you, but I'm also concerned they might just drop out. We should make a 50/50 deal with all of them. We provide half of whatever they provide. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
| ||
