Bombing Syria

[mtangelsfan]

Well?

[Jason]

I understand why it was done but I'm not sure it does anything for our interests. At least it was strictly a military base that was hit. 

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

I'm with Jason.  Ultimately I don't think anything like this should start off with a unilateral move but we've seen this too many times to count.  

[Kevin]

Dum dum dum dum dum

[Glen]

14 minutes ago, Catwhoshatinthehat said:

I'm with Jason.  Ultimately I don't think anything like this should start off with a unilateral move but we've seen this too many times to count.  

Yeah, the poll needs a third option. Wait and see.

[Chuck]

Initially I like it.

It sends a message. Don't fucking kill innocent civilians, even if it's your own.

NATO is slow to move on shit like this. 

My only concern is that there could have been Russians close by the missile attack. What if we killed one of Putin's peeps? That could get ugly.  

[mtangelsfan]

12 minutes ago, Glen said:

Yeah, the poll needs a third option. Wait and see.

Wait and see what?  I think this is a pretty simple question.

[Jason]

12 minutes ago, Chuckster70 said:

Initially I like it.

It sends a message. Don't fucking kill innocent civilians, even if it's your own.

NATO is slow to move on shit like this. 

My only concern is that there could have been Russians close by the missile attack. What if we killed one of Putin's peeps? That could get ugly.  

Apparently they were given a 1 hour heads up before the strike. They took that into account. 

[Lhalo]

6 minutes ago, Jason said:

Apparently they were given a 1 hour heads up before the strike. They took that into account. 

I wonder if the Russians gave the U.S. a heads up about this.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04/07/russian-warship-steams-toward-us-destroyers-that-launched-syria-airstrikes.html

[Chuck]

7 minutes ago, Jason said:

Apparently they were given a 1 hour heads up before the strike. They took that into account. 

Oh good. I didn't know that.

[Jason]

Just now, Lawrence said:

I wonder if the Russians gave the U.S. a heads up about this.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04/07/russian-warship-steams-toward-us-destroyers-that-launched-syria-airstrikes.html

I think Putin may be trying to save a little face. 

[Jason]

I really do not see anymore military action in the near future in regards to this. What happens down the road is a different story.

[arch stanton]

We're really late to this dance. The time to worry about killing innocents passed by years ago. Does this mean we'll welcome the refugees now?

[Lhalo]

Frau Merkel will keep her arms open I'm sure.

[Jason]

3 minutes ago, arch stanton said:

We're really late to this dance. The time to worry about killing innocents passed by years ago. Does this mean we'll welcome the refugees now?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states

At some point, yes

[arch stanton]

4 minutes ago, Jason said:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states

At some point, yes

So, no

[red321]

If we have "a moral obligation" to bomb Syria or take other military actions because of their use of chemical weapons/brutalizing their own people...does that not mean we have a moral obligation to take in refugees that might result because of those actions?

 

[Lhalo]

6 minutes ago, red321 said:

If we have "a moral obligation" to bomb Syria or take other military actions because of their use of chemical weapons/brutalizing their own people...does that not mean we have a moral obligation to take in refugees that might result because of those actions?

We have a moral obligation to do neither.

[mtangelsfan]

9 minutes ago, red321 said:

If we have "a moral obligation" to bomb Syria or take other military actions because of their use of chemical weapons/brutalizing their own people...does that not mean we have a moral obligation to take in refugees that might result because of those actions?

 

I think the better question is if we have a moral obligation in Syria what about North Korea?  What about several countries in Africa?  If we are supposed to act to save people from their evil leaders where does it stop?

[Jason]

17 minutes ago, arch stanton said:

So, no

I think the Trump admin will start letting some refugees from Syria to come in. Honestly, I think the Syrians would rather Trump help them stay in their own country

[red321]

 

4 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

I think the better question is if we have a moral obligation in Syria what about North Korea?  What about several countries in Africa?  If we are supposed to act to save people from their evil leaders where does it stop?

I'm not sure that is the better question. I'm not saying we have a moral obligation in Syria (or anywhere), my question is more along the lines of if that is one of the reasons being offered up, does it then require you follow through on that obligation? If your rationale is you have to do something because of moral reasons, or strategic interest reasons, etc....aren't you culpable for the aftermath?

Escalating the war in Syria creates more refugees...does that require being open to taking in more refugees?

[Jason]

2 minutes ago, red321 said:

 

I'm not sure that is the better question. I'm not saying we have a moral obligation in Syria (or anywhere), my question is more along the lines of if that is one of the reasons being offered up, does it then require you follow through on that obligation? If your rationale is you have to do something because of moral reasons, or strategic interest reasons, etc....aren't you culpable for the aftermath?

Escalating the war in Syria creates more refugees...does that require being open to taking in more refugees?

This very question is the main reason I think we should mind our own business

[mtangelsfan]

5 minutes ago, red321 said:

 

I'm not sure that is the better question. I'm not saying we have a moral obligation in Syria (or anywhere), my question is more along the lines of if that is one of the reasons being offered up, does it then require you follow through on that obligation? If your rationale is you have to do something because of moral reasons, or strategic interest reasons, etc....aren't you culpable for the aftermath?

Escalating the war in Syria creates more refugees...does that require being open to taking in more refugees?

It is a good question and one of the many reasons I am against this.  I am not an isolationist but the Middle-East seems like an unsolvable situation.  

[Jason]

2 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

It is a good question and one of the many reasons I am against this.  I am not an isolationist but the Middle-East seems like an unsolvable situation.  

Seems like??

[mtangelsfan]

Not many things are impossible but I do think it is impossible for the U.S.