U.S. launches airstrikes in Syria

**Webb21** · 04-06-2017, 10:02 PM

Dozens of tomahwak missiles against two separate air bases used to store chemical weapons.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04...ns-attack.html

Personally, not happy to see this. The chemical attack simply doesn't pass the sniff test IMO. Why would Assad launch an a chemical attack against his own people? He's winning the war. He has a nuetral U.S. What would he have to gain? Not buying it. Not on board with this.

**filthflarnfilth** · 04-06-2017, 10:13 PM

It's a message to Putin. You next b.

**NCRAVEN** · 04-06-2017, 10:17 PM

Originally Posted by Webb21

Dozens of tomahwak missiles against two separate air bases used to store chemical weapons.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04...ns-attack.html

Personally, not happy to see this. The chemical attack simply doesn't pass the sniff test IMO. Why would Assad launch an a chemical attack against his own people? He's winning the war. He has a nuetral U.S. What would he have to gain? Not buying it. Not on board with this.

Who do you think set off the chemical weapons?

**wickedsolo** · 04-06-2017, 10:46 PM

Originally Posted by Webb21

Dozens of tomahwak missiles against two separate air bases used to store chemical weapons.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04...ns-attack.html

Personally, not happy to see this. The chemical attack simply doesn't pass the sniff test IMO. Why would Assad launch an a chemical attack against his own people? He's winning the war. He has a nuetral U.S. What would he have to gain? Not buying it. Not on board with this.

I don't like it either, but Assad has used chemical weapons against Syrians before. He's certainly capable and willing to use them.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**Webb21** · 04-06-2017, 11:06 PM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

Who do you think set off the chemical weapons?

Not sure. Would you say that other groups have more to gain from the chemical attack than Assad? I would, which is why this whole thing is raising alarms with me. I'll remain skeptical and wait for more evidence to come out.

The response at least seems more like a warning than a full out attack. Hope it ends here.

**HoustonRaven** · 04-07-2017, 07:36 AM

He didn't use the Sarin on his own people. He was attacking the rebels with the gas and the civilians that were killed were either human shields or just got caught up in it. The rebels are hiding in population centers. They're in a civil war right now.

He has shown time and time again he doesn't care about civilian casualties. This is yet another example of that. He's an evil bastard.

That said, Trump didn't even make one call to Congress. No big surprise that his very first military action would violate the Constitution. The only thing this bombing did was piss off Russia, cost us money and made some folks "feel better" about themselves by being able to claim they did something.

Shit, Hillary said about an hour before the bombing this is what she'd do and Trump goes ahead and does it?

**wickedsolo** · 04-07-2017, 08:04 AM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

He didn't use the Sarin on his own people. He was attacking the rebels with the gas and the civilians that were killed were either human shields or just got caught up in it. The rebels are hiding in population centers. They're in a civil war right now.

He has shown time and time again he doesn't care about civilian casualties. This is yet another example of that. He's an evil bastard.

That said, Trump didn't even make one call to Congress. No big surprise that his very first military action would violate the Constitution. The only thing this bombing did was piss off Russia, cost us money and made some folks "feel better" about themselves by being able to claim they did something.

Shit, Hillary said about an hour before the bombing this is what she'd do and Trump goes ahead and does it?

Yep. Super lame.

And Trump tweeted a few years ago criticizing Obama for not going to Congress regarding military action in another country.

Congress needs to hold him accountable.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**HoustonRaven** · 04-07-2017, 08:15 AM

I do concede that this will most likely prevent future chemical attacks. We will know in a week or two, once everything stabilizes again, if these bombings did indeed give Syria pause on using chemicals again.

We technically have the capability to wipe Syria off the map many times over. And I don't mean nuclear. It would take a week or so to be done with Syria. It's the diplomatic side of this that makes things untenable.

**HoustonRaven** · 04-07-2017, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

Yep. Super lame.

And Trump tweeted a few years ago criticizing Obama for not going to Congress regarding military action in another country.

Congress needs to hold him accountable.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They won't. Ever since Clinton, Congress has basically conceded the War Powers Act to the President.

**Jsmoove** · 04-07-2017, 08:25 AM

So insider info here... Obama was already going to go in there this was in the plans since June. Now trump just amped up the process but Obama has had troops in there since June it's just been on the hush hush other nations are helping too but they are being quiet about it. Donnie didn't do anything new he just expedited the process. One of my friends have been in Syria since June and he said shit was hitting the fan then. The question is what is Russia going to do?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**Jsmoove** · 04-07-2017, 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

They won't. Ever since Clinton, Congress has basically conceded the War Powers Act to the President.

Because wars creates money just not for us folks

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**wickedsolo** · 04-07-2017, 08:33 AM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

I do concede that this will most likely prevent future chemical attacks. We will know in a week or two, once everything stabilizes again, if these bombings did indeed give Syria pause on using chemicals again.

We technically have the capability to wipe Syria off the map many times over. And I don't mean nuclear. It would take a week or so to be done with Syria. It's the diplomatic side of this that makes things untenable.

No doubt about that. My brother-in-law's Nat Guard unit is preparing to deploy there within the next year. So, clearly there are rumblings through the DOD that Syria's on deck.

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

They won't. Ever since Clinton, Congress has basically conceded the War Powers Act to the President.

I know and it's a complete sham. But you know congressmen and women will sit there and point their finger at the President and call them a war monger, war hawk, and so on.