What should Pres. Trump do about Syria?

[1jkw]

 

So should the US do anything?

[Mainecat]

Put Generals uniforms on his kids and send them over. They seem to be knowledgeable in everything these days.

[Snoslinger]

same thing Obama did. only this time the rwws will be OK with it.

 

 

[motonoggin]

Nothing.

[Cold War]

Draw a red line.

[Ez ryder]

figure out if for some insane reason Assad actually did what they say he did . even though it denies all strategic  logic for him to do it .

remember the last gassing he was accused of ? who did it and who is still accused of it ?

[Anler]

He should stop arming rebels. 

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/

[Highmark]

Get out, stay out and don't give anyone weapons.  Let the UN and NATO handle it.  The mere fact that Russia has their nose in it should force NATO to be a part of it however they are just about as weak as the UN when it comes to standing up for peace.   

Edited April 6, 2017 by Highmark

[spin_dry]

NATO? that makes no fucking sense. 

[spin_dry]

how about relax a bit and find out who really did this chemical attack. no one really seems to know. 

[Mileage Psycho]

1 hour ago, 1jkw said:

 

So should the US do anything?

Trumps Tweeter advice the last time this happened was to not attack Syria, in fact he said "save the powder for another day"

 

 

[Mileage Psycho]

41 minutes ago, Cold War said:

Draw a red line.

Latest news, Trump says they have crossed many lines.............fuck one red line.

 

[Highmark]

18 minutes ago, spin_dry said:

NATO? that makes no fucking sense. 

NATO was basically formed to deal with the former Soviet Union and the spread of communism and since its collapse it is only there now for one reason.   Russia.   Anytime, anywhere Russia is involved in something NATO should be right there.  While not directly Russia why did NATO get involved in Bosnia?  Why did it intervene in Libya?  If it was justifiable to be involved in Libya why not in Syria?  

Operation Unified Protector was a NATO operation enforcing United Nations Security Council resolutions 1970 and 1973 concerning the Libyan Civil War and adopted on 26 February and 17 March 2011, respectively. These resolutions imposed sanctions on key members of the Gaddafi government and authorized NATO to implement an arms embargo, a no-fly zone and to use all means necessary, short of foreign occupation, to protect Libyan civilians and civilian populated areas.^[3] The operation started on 23 March and gradually expanded during the following weeks, by integrating more and more elements of the multinational military intervention, which had started on 19 March in response to the same UN resolutions. As of 31 March 2011 it encompassed all international operations in Libya. NATO support was vital to the rebel victory over the forces loyal to Gaddafi. The operation officially ended on 31 October 2011, after the rebel leaders, formalized in the National Transitional Council, had declared Libya liberated on 23 October.

The operation began with a naval arms embargo, while command of the no-fly zone and the air strikes against Libyan Armed Forces remained under command of the international coalition, led by France, the United Kingdom and the United States, due to lack of consensus between NATO members.^[4] On 24 March NATO decided to take control of the no-fly zone enforcement, by integrating the air assets of the international coalition under NATO command, although the command of air strikes on ground targets remained under national authority.^[5][6] A few days later, on 27 March NATO decided to implement all military aspects of the UN resolution and formal transfer of command occurred at 06:00 GMT on 31 March 2011, formally ending the national operations such as the U.S.-coordinated Operation Odyssey Dawn.^[7][8]

The arms embargo was initially carried out using mainly ships from NATO's Standing Maritime Group 1 and Standing Mine Countermeasures Group 1 already patrolling the Mediterranean Sea at the time of the resolution, enforced with additional ships, submarines and maritime surveillance aircraft from NATO members. They were to "monitor, report and, if needed, interdict vessels suspected of carrying illegal arms or mercenaries". The no-fly zone was enforced by aircraft transferred to Unified Protector from the international coalition, with additional aircraft from NATO and other allied nations. The air strikes, although under central NATO command, were only conducted by aircraft of the nations agreeing to enforce this part of the UN resolution

Edited April 6, 2017 by Highmark

[Snoslinger]

Obama played the situation very well. showed we're not going to sit by and do nothing, did not get us involved militarily, and got Syria to admit to, and give up, their chemical weapons stash. now let's see if trump can do anything similar.

[Highmark]

4 minutes ago, Snoslinger said:

Obama played the situation very well. showed we're not going to sit by and do nothing, did not get us involved militarily, and got Syria to admit to, and give up, their chemical weapons stash. now let's see if trump can do anything similar.

While I don't completely oppose Obama's handling on Syria (should never have gave weapons to the rebels) I'm glad he didn't put troops on the ground.   However I find it laughable that you trust the Russian's and Assad on the chemical weapons.   

[Snoslinger]

1 minute ago, Highmark said:

While I don't completely oppose Obama's handling on Syria (should never have gave weapons to the rebels) I'm glad he didn't put troops on the ground.   However I find it laughable that you trust the Russian's and Assad on the chemical weapons.   

it was better than doing nothing, right?

[Highmark]

6 minutes ago, Snoslinger said:

it was better than doing nothing, right?

No.  The best option would have been to let the UN and NATO handle it.  Anything we do stand alone in the Muslim world comes back to bite us in the ass.  

[Zambroski]

36 minutes ago, spin_dry said:

how about relax a bit and find out who really did this chemical attack. no one really seems to know. 

This.  Something doesn't smell right here (pun?) and it seems this may be done to try and drag us into this.  And even when we find out....I say we STAY OUT OF THIS SHIT.  

[Anler]

21 minutes ago, Snoslinger said:

Obama played the situation very well. showed we're not going to sit by and do nothing, did not get us involved militarily, and got Syria to admit to, and give up, their chemical weapons stash. now let's see if trump can do anything similar.

Ummm Obama helped train and weaponize ISIS. To fight Assad. 

[Anler]

1 minute ago, Zambroski said:

This.  Something doesn't smell right here (pun?) and it seems this may be done to try and drag us into this.  And even when we find out....I say we STAY OUT OF THIS SHIT.  

It sure doesnt. 

[Mileage Psycho]

3 minutes ago, Highmark said:

No.  The best option would have been to let the UN and NATO handle it.  Anything we do stand alone in the Muslim world comes back to bite us in the ass.  

A NATO was not attacked in Syria, the NATO mission is for NATO to defend and assist other NATO nations if they are attacked.

Next, there is no way the UN security council was going to vote on allowing a UN military option in Syria.

What now?

[Anler]

Just now, Mileage Psycho said:

A NATO was not attacked in Syria, the NATO mission is for NATO to defend and assist other NATO nations if they are attacked.

Next, there is no way the UN security council was going to vote on allowing a UN military option in Syria.

What now?

Stop arming rebels? 

[Highmark]

6 minutes ago, Mileage Psycho said:

A NATO was not attacked in Syria, the NATO mission is for NATO to defend and assist other NATO nations if they are attacked.

Next, there is no way the UN security council was going to vote on allowing a UN military option in Syria.

What now?

Why was NATO in Libya?  NATO is chickenshit here because of big bad mother Russia.  

was a NATO operation enforcing United Nations Security Council resolutions 1970 and 1973 concerning the Libyan Civil War and adopted on 26 February and 17 March 2011, respectively. These resolutions imposed sanctions on key members of the Gaddafi government and authorized NATO to implement an arms embargo, a no-fly zone and to use all means necessary, short of foreign occupation, to protect Libyan civilians and civilian populated areas.^[3] The operation started on 23 March and gradually expanded during the following weeks, by integrating more and more elements of the multinational military intervention, which had started on 19 March in response to the same UN resolutions. As of 31 March 2011 it encompassed all international operations in Libya. NATO support was vital to the rebel victory over the forces loyal to Gaddafi. The operation officially ended on 31 October 2011, after the rebel leaders, formalized in the National Transitional Council, had declared Libya liberated on 23 October.

Edited April 6, 2017 by Highmark

[Anler]

If WE really gave a shit about Syria, we would have not armed the rebels (aka ISIS and other terrorist groups), sought a cease fire and allowed a democratic election to take place. We could still help to stop arming the rebels and help set up an election. Is that being presented? nah...

[Highmark]

1 minute ago, Anler said:

If WE really gave a shit about Syria, we would have not armed the rebels (aka ISIS and other terrorist groups), sought a cease fire and allowed a democratic election to take place. We could still help to stop arming the rebels and help set up an election. Is that being presented? nah...

Democratic election to take place?   Will never happen until Assad is removed.   Need to force Russia and Iran to make that happen which it never will.  I completely agree arming the rebels was a HUGE FUCKING MISTAKE.  

Edited April 6, 2017 by Highmark