While attacks such as these can destabilize relations with the Middle East, Treaties have no purpose if there's no power to back them up. In this case, the use of force was justified in order to back up our words. The past 8 years have seen the United States decline in terms of its image as a strong country due to a weak leader.

 

I think he probably should have asked Congress for approval before this move, as his critics have said, otherwise I completely agree with this action President Trump took. 

That being said, I don't agree with everything he's done so far. But otherwise, the way he's handling foreign policy is both efficient, intelligent, and swift. A stark contrast to President Obama who failed to back up his words, was viewed as a weak leader by other countries, and let them walk over us.

 

35 minutes ago, Original Light said:

the use of force was justified in order to back up our words.

By tipping off the Syrian and Russian governments in advance to warn them of our attack it did nothing except project an image to the rest of the world and his critics save for those two. 

37 minutes ago, Original Light said:

I think he probably should have asked Congress for approval before this move

Now, I never understood this logic. I was vehemently against Obama, but even then like now I understood the difference between military action, war, and conflict. My views on military conflict and the powers of the commander in chief has always been consistent, therefore I can say even though I oppose this expensive firework show, he did not require the consent of Congress.

 

The president has the sole power in our government to command the military, therefore has the power to order it as he sees fit so as long as it is a constitutional action.  The reason he did not require Congressional approval was because this was not an action of war, rather conflict. We are not at war with Syria, this was a one off attack. Even conflict is different than war in that it is between a non state entity, is not a prolonged conflict with a state, or against a state (usually not prolonged) without the extended powers of a declaration of war (as such is limited).

I don't really care about the strikes, I support them. I do find the continued hypocrisy of Trump and the mental hoops his supporters jump through to defend the guy to be pretty funny though.

 

Edited April 11, 20179 yr by Constable Lego

8 hours ago, Constable Lego said:

I don't really care about the strikes, I support them. I do find the continued hypocrisy of Trump and the mental hoops his supporters jump through to defend the guy to be pretty funny though.

 

 

Americans will do and say anything to defend their political affiliation. Since they're registered with a specific party they feel as though they're required to agree with and defend everything that the party does, it's nuts.

18 hours ago, Constable Lego said:

I don't really care about the strikes, I support them. I do find the continued hypocrisy of Trump and the mental hoops his supporters jump through to defend the guy to be pretty funny though.

 

Yup, at least I've been consistent though. The amount of hoops my brother jumps through is insane.

11 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

Americans will do and say anything to defend their political affiliation. Since they're registered with a specific party they feel as though they're required to agree with and defend everything that the party does, it's nuts.

 

Eh. I follow a few legal blogs, and their authors have generally been consistent: they criticize Trump for intervening without Congressional approval, but they also criticized Obama when he intervened in Libya and Syria without Congressional approval.

16 hours ago, cp702 said:

 

Eh. I follow a few legal blogs, and their authors have generally been consistent: they criticize Trump for intervening without Congressional approval, but they also criticized Obama when he intervened in Libya and Syria without Congressional approval.

 

 

Are they some sort of centrist political organization?

Edited April 12, 20179 yr by TheDivineHustle
Typo corrected

On 4/10/2017 at 4:54 AM, Hystery said:

It's both disrespectful to the people who died and disrespectful to the people as a whole, they shouldn't be judged for the decisions of their government.

 

 

It was also very disrespectful for the Japanese to force American and Philipino troops to march over 60 miles. In my opinion, the Japanese deserved the cookie that they received. They were begging for a war, and they got exactly what they asked for. Syria is doing something remotely similar, and soon they'll face a (drastically) different but similar fate to the Japanese. 

Edited April 12, 20179 yr by TheDivineHustle

3 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

Are they some sort of centrist political organization?

Not being hypocritical isn't being centrist, it's being intellectually honest.

32 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

Syria is doing something remotely similar, and soon they'll face a (drastically) different but similar fate to the Japanese. 

For a libertarian, you're sounding very Neocon to me. The Syrian Government hasn't done anything bad to us, they represent no threat to us, and they also will at least keep out the rise of terrorism in their country should they stay in power (which at this rate is the case). They still have yet to have a chemical attack that actually can be proven to be carried out by them as opposed to the rebels. This last supposed attack has yet to provide any slice of evidence it was the Syrian Government. The doctor who attested it was the Syrian Government, well, he is a terror suspect in the UK. The White Helmets also handled the bodies and wounded in ways inconsistent with chemical warfare, oh and wore dust masks. This makes me doubt the claims very seriously, if this did actually occur, those who responded would be dead.

 

Oh and this aside, comparing this situation to the Japanese is a major false equivalence.

1 hour ago, TheDivineHustle said:

It was also very disrespectful for the Japanese to force American and Philipino troops to march over 60 miles. In my opinion, the Japanese deserved the cookie that they received. They were begging for a war, and they got exactly what they asked for. Syria is doing something remotely similar, and soon they'll face a (drastically) different but similar fate to the Japanese. 

I doubt any civilian of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "begging" for war. No one begs for war. War is horrible. It kills people dear to you. You'll never see a civilian say "Damn I can't wait for us to go to war, it's amazing". Those people did not deserve to be nuked. Even the soldiers themselves didn't deserve to be nuked, they just follow orders. The Japanese chain of command should have been the target if anything, but the US were too excited to test their little toys in live action, and that's what happened. So no, I'll sound stubborn, but Japanese did NOT deserve this. And the fact that you're convinced Syria should face a similar fate represents everything I hate and I'm afraid of about the US.

1 hour ago, crkinnh said:

The Syrian Government hasn't done anything bad to us, they represent no threat to us, and they also will at least keep out the rise of terrorism in their country should they stay in power (which at this rate is the case). They still have yet to have a chemical attack that actually can be proven to be carried out by them as opposed to the rebels. This last supposed attack has yet to provide any slice of evidence it was the Syrian Government. The doctor who attested it was the Syrian Government, well, he is a terror suspect in the UK. The White Helmets also handled the bodies and wounded in ways inconsistent with chemical warfare, oh and wore dust masks. This makes me doubt the claims very seriously, if this did actually occur, those who responded would be dead.

 

 

 

 

 

According to the notably general accepted definition of common sense, it's relatively obvious that it was, in fact, the Syrian Regime that conducted the chemical weapons attacks. Not only do they possess the largest arsenal of these weapons in Syria, but they've conducted this attack before, according to the UN as evidenced by its sanctions.

Quote

For a libertarian, you're sounding very Neocon to me.

The beauty of being a Libertarian is that I can hold views of both sides without pledging direct allegiance to either.

Quote

Not being hypocritical isn't being centrist, it's being intellectually honest.

Generally speaking, members of either major political party in the United States refuse to make direct criticisms towards their candidate or elected politician because they'd prefer that individual over what the other side has to offer. That's why I ask if it's some sort of centrist organization because criticism of both Obama and Trump isn't something that I hear commonly among the left and the right, it's either one or the other. It's usually the "middle people" that make criticisms towards both.

 

Quote

Oh and this aside, comparing this situation to the Japanese is a major false equivalence.

It was a far-fetched comparison as blatantly noted by my remarks throughout, but so long as you understood my point of concept. With every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. 

27 minutes ago, Hystery said:

 No one begs for war. War is horrible. It kills people dear to you. You'll never see a civilian say "Damn I can't wait for us to go to war, it's amazing". Those people did not deserve to be nuked. Even the soldiers themselves didn't deserve to be nuked, they just follow orders. The Japanese chain of command should have been the target if anything, but the US were too excited to test their little toys in live action, and that's what happened.

 

 

 

 

There are plenty of people that beg for war. Have you ever been in the military? I can't speak for the French military, but I can guarantee you that my fellow soldiers are begging to be let loose.

Quote

So no, I'll sound stubborn, but Japanese did NOT deserve this. And the fact that you're convinced Syria should face a similar fate represents everything I hate and I'm afraid of about the US.

 

 

 

 

They asked for it when they refused to surrender man. It's not like we just randomly ordered an atomic bomb to nearly destroy an entire nation. They refused to surrender, so we took the best course of action and saved millions of lives.

 

Edited April 12, 20179 yr by TheDivineHustle

1 hour ago, TheDivineHustle said:

There are plenty of people that beg for war. Have you ever been in the military? I can't speak for the French military, but I can guarantee you that my fellow soldiers are begging to be let loose.

I was talking about civilians. Don't know about the US, but here you won't ever hear someone say "Damn I'm so excited to go to war, can't wait to see dead soldiers on TV". Mostly because like the majority of the European countries, we have faced war on our own soil. But I'm pretty convinced that no civilian would beg for war even in Japan. No one wants to see their husband, sons, father, brothers sent to the frontline to be slaughtered. So no, civilians didn't deserve to be nuked. Their government refused to surrender, not them.

 

To make my point easier to understand, imagine that, let's say, the US and North Korea go to war. You're sent to battle, as a soldier. Thing is, the US refuse to surrender after years of conflict. So North Korea drops a nuke on Los Angeles or San Franciso, killing hundreds of thousands of people. Would you say that people living in LA and SF deserved to be nuked? If yes, then I definitely can't understand your point, if not, then you can understand mine.

 

As for soldiers begging for war, they're part of the reason why most people think soldiers are just dumb killing machines, waiting to murder their fellow human beings like animals.

 

War is not fun. War isn't like in video games. Look at how many veterans are scarred for life, both physically and psychologically.

Edited April 13, 20179 yr by Hystery

14 minutes ago, Hystery said:

I was talking about civilians. Don't know about the US, but here you won't ever hear someone say "Damn I'm so excited to go to war, can't wait to see dead soldiers on TV". Mostly because like the majority of the European countries, we have faced war on our own soil. But I'm pretty convinced that no civilian would beg for war even in Japan. No one wants to see their husband, sons, father, brothers sent to the frontline to be slaughtered. So no, civilians didn't deserve to be nuked. Their government refused to surrender, not them.

 

 

 

If the civilians were in favor of continuing the war, then they had it coming to them. If the government refused to surrender but the people wanted to end the war, then it isn't their fault at all. Their government didn't abide by what they wanted for their own country. If the people wanted to continue fighting, then that's on them is what I'm trying to say. They wanted war, and they got the shit end of it. They shouldn't have attacked the US.

Quote

To make my point easier to understand, imagine that, let's say, the US and North Korea go to war. You're sent to battle, as a soldier. Thing is, the US refuse to surrender after years of conflict. So North Korea drops a nuke on Los Angeles or San Franciso, killing hundreds of thousands of people. Would you say that people living in LA and SF deserved to be nuked? If yes, then I definitely can't understand your point, if not, then you can understand mine.

 

 

 

 

 

It would depend on the circumstances. Do the American people want to surrender or do they want to continue fighting?

Quote

As for soldiers begging for war, they're part of the reason why most people think soldiers are just dumb killing machines, waiting to murder their fellow human beings like animals. War is not fun. War isn't like in video games. Look at how many veterans are scarred for life, both physically and psychologically.

 

 

 

 We're fighting an organization that torture, rape, and murder innocent people. Not all, but a good portion of soldiers want their fair share of putting them to sleep. You think that soldiers share your perspective, well, you haven't met the US Army Infantry, lol. It's easy to make a sentimental judgment from a civilian perspective, but I'm telling you that a lot of these guys see it totally different lol, they are dying to see some action. Why else would someone enlist into the Military as an Infantrymen? Every Infantry guy I've ever spoken to has said the same thing, they want to fight the enemy, the people that target innocents.

Edited April 13, 20179 yr by TheDivineHustle

1 hour ago, TheDivineHustle said:

According to the notably general accepted definition of common sense, it's relatively obvious that it was, in fact, the Syrian Regime that conducted the chemical weapons attacks. Not only do they possess the largest arsenal of these weapons in Syria

According to the UN and the US Dept of State, they got rid of all their chemical weapons (at least as inspected) in or before 2013.

1 hour ago, TheDivineHustle said:

but they've conducted this attack before, according to the UN as evidenced by its sanctions.

No, they were alleged to have conducted this type of attack. It's been widely disproven that the Syrians have conducted chemical attacks. The attacks from before were conducted by crudely produced chemical rockets, and the Syrians actually produced evidence of the cache they came upon in the same area not long after the original attack. Furthermore, Turkish Police in a raid not long after seized a chemical weapons cache that was going to Syrian Rebels.

The only reason the UN has instituted sanctions is because of a coalition of countries including ourselves that doesn't care about evidence to the contrary, we just want to remove Assad's government, and Russia's last ally in the region.

2 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

The beauty of being a Libertarian is that I can hold views of both sides without pledging direct allegiance to either.

No, a neocon cannot be a libertarian, and this is coming from someone who turned from a neocon to a libertarian.

 

2 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

There are plenty of people that beg for war. Have you ever been in the military? I can't speak for the French military, but I can guarantee you that my fellow soldiers are begging to be let loose.

Not many people beg to go to war. Although with the French, it would be the Foreign Legion.

 

2 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

They asked for it when they refused to surrender man. It's not like we just randomly ordered an atomic bomb to nearly destroy an entire nation. They refused to surrender, so we took the best course of action and saved millions of lives.

It was either this or a land invasion that would've lasted years, and would've caused a total of 10 million deaths with the allies alone, nevermind the Japanese military or civilian casualties. 

19 minutes ago, Hystery said:

To make my point easier to understand, imagine that, let's say, the US and North Korea go to war. You're sent to battle, as a soldier. Thing is, the US refuse to surrender after years of conflict. So North Korea drops a nuke on Los Angeles or San Franciso, killing hundreds of thousands of people. Would you say that people living in LA and SF deserved to be nuked?

They don't deserve to be nuked, but it can be entirely justifiable. If they are backed into a corner, all bets of a fair fight are gone. If they are winning on the other hand, a situation where tens of millions of both of our sides alone are going to die, then a hundred thousand deaths or so would be getting off easy.

10 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

We're fighting an organization that torture, rape, and murder innocent people. Not all, but a good portion of soldiers want their fair share of putting them to sleep. You think that soldiers share your perspective, well, you haven't met the US Army Infantry, lol. It's easy to make a sentimental judgment from a civilian perspective, but I'm telling you that a lot of these guys see it totally different lol, they are dying to see some action. Why else would someone enlist into the Military as an Infantrymen? Every Infantry guy I've ever spoken to has said the same thing, they want to fight the enemy, the people that target innocents.

Well, fighting stuff like ISIS is different from a war. Fighting terrorist organizations, of course everyone will agree they need to be put down, they're endoctrinated, dangerous. When I say war, it's war against another country. Syria, Russia, North Korea, you name it. Do your fellow infantrymen really want to go to war against them? I'm genuinely asking, I really don't know.

25 minutes ago, Hystery said:

Well, fighting stuff like ISIS is different from a war. Fighting terrorist organizations, of course everyone will agree they need to be put down, they're endoctrinated, dangerous. When I say war, it's war against another country. Syria, Russia, North Korea, you name it. Do your fellow infantrymen really want to go to war against them? I'm genuinely asking, I really don't know.

I'm going to answer this for him because I automatically know his thinking more than likely. If he's coming at this from a neocon perspective, which I was one at one point, then he's going to say that all of these countries go against the interests of the US and Europe. He's going to want to go to war with Syria because they are a dictatorship, regardless of whether or not they are the best government in Syria as of now. He's going to want to go to war with Russia because they "are aggressive", which is really because they are being backed into a corner, and their economy is being destroyed. He might say because there was "aggression in Crimea" too, despite the fact that they had an election there which won by a landslide (without any problems in bribery or shadiness).

He's almost guaranteed to say we should go to war with North Korea. I can't even blame him there, it's bound to happen sooner or later, but now it might be because of the nuclear program that directly threatens South Korea, Australia, Japan, and the US (as well as our territories in the Pacific). 

 

Note: just realized he meant the soldiers not him, but oh well, my point stands

Edited April 13, 20179 yr by crkinnh
How did I say "one" instead of "won"?

25 minutes ago, Hystery said:

Well, fighting stuff like ISIS is different from a war. Fighting terrorist organizations, of course everyone will agree they need to be put down, they're endoctrinated, dangerous. When I say war, it's war against another country. Syria, Russia, North Korea, you name it. Do your fellow infantrymen really want to go to war against them? I'm genuinely asking, I really don't know.

 

As far as I know, I'd say no. Of course, I'm not a mind reader so I cannot tell you exactly what the Infantrymen think, and not all of them feel the same way. But based on the Infantrymen that I have met, most of them seem willing and edged to fight terrorists, not necessarily Russia or North Korea. I haven't met every single Infantryman in the US Army, so I can't really make any generalization on it. I'm just basing it off of those I've spoken to.

16 minutes ago, crkinnh said:

I'm going to answer this for him because I automatically know his thinking more than likely. If he's coming at this from a neocon perspective, which I was one at one point, then he's going to say that all of these countries go against the interests of the US and Europe. He's going to want to go to war with Syria because they are a dictatorship, regardless of whether or not they are the best government in Syria as of now. He's going to want to go to war with Russia because they "are aggressive", which is really because they are being backed into a corner, and their economy is being destroyed. He might say because there was "aggression in Crimea" too, despite the fact that they had an election there which won by a landslide (without any problems in bribery or shadiness).

He's almost guaranteed to say we should go to war with North Korea. I can't even blame him there, it's bound to happen sooner or later, but now it might be because of the nuclear program that directly threatens South Korea, Australia, Japan, and the US (as well as our territories in the Pacific). 

 

I also think we should go to war with Canada, because why the hell not.

Just now, TheDivineHustle said:

I also think we should go to war with Canada, because why the hell not.

That's something I can get behind, just make them a territory rather than a state, I don't want them to vote.

Quote

No, a neocon cannot be a libertarian, and this is coming from someone who turned from a neocon to a libertarian.

I'm not going to debate the philosophy of political affiliation with you man, lol. That'll be an endless discussion.

Quote

According to the UN and the US Dept of State, they got rid of all their chemical weapons (at least as inspected) in or before 2013. No, they were alleged to have conducted this type of attack. It's been widely disproven that the Syrians have conducted chemical attacks. The attacks from before were conducted by crudely produced chemical rockets, and the Syrians actually produced evidence of the cache they came upon in the same area not long after the original attack. Furthermore, Turkish Police in a raid not long after seized a chemical weapons cache that was going to Syrian Rebels.

 

 

 

 

They were alleged to have conducted a chemical weapons attack by the same UN that says they destroyed all of their chemical weapons. Which is also the same UN that said it is definitely a possibility that they may not have actually destroyed all of their nuclear weapons; and could still have the capabilities to create more. This UN doesn't seem like much of a reliable source, friend.

 

Just now, TheDivineHustle said:

They were alleged to have conducted a chemical weapons attack by the same UN that says they destroyed all of their chemical weapons. Which is also the same UN that said it is definitely a possibility that they may not have actually destroyed all of their nuclear weapons; and could still have the capabilities to create more. This UN doesn't seem like much of a reliable source, friend.

Then don't quote the UN yourself?