It's my understanding that Assad has a history of using chemical weapons, had possession of chemical weapons that Russia previously agreed to remove and recent intelligence provided that he had ordered use of them again followed by the news stories of civilian casualties that have been shown on television.

According to the Sec of Defense the airstrike on Syria's airbase destroyed about 20% of the Syrian government's operational aircraft. As stated earlier in this thread, I took it as a shot across the bow indicating the US sending a message that President Trump won't tolerate the use of chemical weapons. I think I also said that the real military story right now was the carrier strike force moving towards the Korean Peninsula.....and that led to the back and forth we have been having.

Do you have different information than this?

Here's a well summarized article from the AP that answers your questions better than I did.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/q-chemical-weapons-syria-192125814.html

Con_Alma;1846998 wrote:It's my understanding that Assad has a history of using chemical weapons, had possession of chemical weapons that Russia previously agreed to remove and recent intelligence provided that he had ordered use of them again followed by the news stories of civilian casualties that have been shown on television.

According to the Sec of Defense the airstrike on Syria's airbase destroyed about 20% of the Syrian government's operational aircraft. As stated earlier in this thread, I took it as a shot across the bow indicating the US sending a message that President Trump won't tolerate the use of chemical weapons. I think I also said that the real military story right now was the carrier strike force moving towards the Korean Peninsula.....and that led to the back and forth we have been having.

Do you have different information than this?

Yes. We don't know who did the chemical attack and therefore destroying 20% of the airbase was a complete joke. That is the reality.

I understand your view and am glad you shared it.

Where do you come up with us destroying 20% of the airbase from??

Con_Alma;1847008 wrote:I understand your view and am glad you shared it.

Where do you come up with us destroying 20% of the airbase from??

From your post.

sleeper;1847009 wrote:From your post.

Ohhh, I see where you got it. You may have misread that.

...According to the Sec of Defense the airstrike on Syria's airbase destroyed about 20% of the Syrian government's operational aircraft. ...

Con_Alma;1847013 wrote:Ohhh, I see where you got it. You may have misread that.

I don't think destroying 20% was worth it. Poor decision and poor execution. This is what you voted for.

What I voted for??? Now you're just slinging crap on the wall again.

Con_Alma;1847016 wrote:What I voted for??? Now you're just slinging crap on the wall again.

Well you either voted for HRC or you allowed Donald Trump to win the election. Which is it?

sleeper;1847017 wrote:Well you either voted for HRC or you allowed Donald Trump to win the election. Which is it?

I did not vote for President Trump in the primary nor the general election. I don't subscribe to the effort of voting to keep someone out or for the closest person to my views who actually has a chance to win.

...but I do love the EOs he has signed and his Supreme Court nomination and appointment. If he continues those type of moves I will be praising him soon enough...just not yet.

Con_Alma;1847018 wrote:I did not vote for President Trump in the primary nor the general election. I don't subscribe to the effort of voting to keep someone out or for the closest person to my views who actually has a chance to win.

I don't either until Trump came around. He is a threat to the security of this country. You now own it.

sleeper;1847019 wrote:I don't either until Trump came around. He is a threat to the security of this country. You now own it.

I'd be happy to "own it" if he keeps a track record of appointing conservative folks to federal positions. There are still a lot of appointments he has to make. I'm not quite there yet.

sleeper;1847019 wrote:I don't either until Trump came around. He is a threat to the security of this country. You now own it.

So, sleeper's new act is if you didn't vote for HRC you are complicit, even if you didn't vote for trump (even though Trump lost more votes to the third party candidates than Hillary). Just pointing that out just in case you all didn't pick up on his new predictable act. *yawn*

like_that;1847026 wrote:So, sleeper's new act is if you didn't vote for HRC you are complicit, even if you didn't vote for trump (even though Trump lost more votes to the third party candidates than Hillary). Just pointing that out just in case you all didn't pick up on his new predictable act. *yawn*

New act? No. This country had an opportunity to avoid electing a completely disaster and they failed. Didn't vote for HRC? You own it! I know who I voted for and let's just say I sleep well at night knowing that I value integrity and country over party.

sleeper;1847029 wrote:New act? No. This country had an opportunity to avoid electing a completely disaster and they failed. Didn't vote for HRC? You own it! I know who I voted for and let's just say I sleep well at night knowing that I value integrity and country over party.

If its not an act then you turned into a sheep. Congrats.

like_that;1847033 wrote:If its not an act then you turned into a sheep. Congrats.

Yes I'm a sheep because I'm able to update my world view based on new data rather than spew partisan dogma for my entire life.

sleeper;1847029 wrote:New act? No. This country had an opportunity to avoid electing a completely disaster and they failed. Didn't vote for HRC? You own it! I know who I voted for and let's just say I sleep well at night knowing that I value integrity and country over party.

Hillary came out said she would have bombed Syria after the chemical attacks. Yet you are up in arms about trump doing it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

sleeper;1847029 wrote:This country had an opportunity to avoid electing a completely disaster ...

No, we really didn't.

Crimson streak;1847040 wrote:Hillary came out said she would have bombed Syria after the chemical attacks. Yet you are up in arms about trump doing it.

But she would have dropped the bombs better and gotten 60% of the fleet, amirite?

Crimson streak;1847040 wrote:Hillary came out said she would have bombed Syria after the chemical attacks. Yet you are up in arms about trump doing it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes she did. She also wanted to destroy their air bases not just pepper them with a few tomahawk missiles. She also wanted to verify that this wasn't a false flag attack.

Also, Trump spent years blaming Obama for Syria and to not attack Syria. And now he's doing it! LOL

This President is also under investigation for colluding with the Russian government on election fraud so let's not even pretend this is the same scenario. Party over country, the GOP way.

Crimson streak;1847040 wrote:Hillary came out said she would have bombed Syria after the chemical attacks. Yet you are up in arms about trump doing it.

Alternative facts, perhaps?

sleeper;1847047 wrote:Trump spent years blaming Obama for Syria and to not attack Syria. And now he's doing it! LOL

This should get WAY more attention. He's doing what he criticized.

O-Trap;1847046 wrote:No, we really didn't.



But she would have dropped the bombs better and gotten 60% of the fleet, amirite?

She would have investigated the issue instead of asking Ivanka Trump on what to do.

CenterBHSFan;1847049 wrote:Alternative facts, perhaps?

Alternative facts is a Trump meme. Donald Trump lied to the American public about his fucking inauguration crowd and the GOP supports this. LOL

Party over country.

O-Trap;1847050 wrote:This should get WAY more attention. He's doing what he criticized.

It's fake news.

It's no surprise that HRC said she would have bombed Syria. We all "knew" she was the more hawkish of the two. So that's not news. Like others have mentioned, what is news is that Trump ran as the nationalist 'America First' candidate who criticized our involvement in ME wars and threw a fit over any suggestion he supported Iraq and has quite a tweet history of bashing involvement in Syria. It's interesting to see his support shift after this. Nationalist wing nuts like Alex Jones are now upset with him while the more neo-con voices are praising him.

What I find most troubling is that Trump made this decision because of 'horrible images on TV'. I do not want that from my President. Sad shit is on TV all the time it CANNOT deter you from your strategy or core beliefs. And that to me is what doesn't get enough press here. I think this situation is bringing to light the total lack of core principles or strategies this administration has. You want to run as a nationalist opposed to foreign involvement, fine. I may not agree but if that's your stance own it. Don't change 3 months in because pictures of gassed kids made you sad. Did all the dead kids trying to flee or caught up in bombings not make you sad before. Is gas extra sad? None of it makes sense.