We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Friday, April 7. 2017
Exactly where is Syria? What is it? Why should I care? Well, I do care about any people who are being tortured, abused, killed, etc., but that is the way of much of the world. It pains me terribly and only increases my gratitude for living in civilization. Still, I had hopes that Trump would stay out of the Middle East messes and leave it to others. I guess not.
And, for the 1000th time, the UN proves itself useless for its supposed purpose. Why do we bother with it?
What's your opinion?
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
President Trump needed Congressional authorization for military action, under the terms of the War Powers Act and the Constitution, before ordering the attack. He didn't even ask for it. He is in the wrong on this.
Why are you going to lie about something that is so easy to check?
The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto."""
In both Iraq and Syria, the only effective opponents of ISIS are Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah. The missile strikes are a gift to ISIS and a poke in the eye to their enemies.
Then there is Xi, sitting a dinner with Trump while a missile strike is underway. This is both an insult to the Chinese and a threat. It is an insult to attack an ally of China's friend Russia while breaking bread with Xi, and it is a threat that a unilateral, preemptive strike on North Korea is probable.
Both Putin and Xi will be reevaluating their policies toward the US, and I expect a very hard line will be forth coming. A strike on North Korea might lead to a counter strike against US asset or allies and a general war.
I voted for the peace candidate, and I got Bill Clinton III and a clone of Madeleine Albright. So much for voting.
Bob, you're a pussy and an idiot (not necessarily in that order)
This strike was to send a message to North Korea as much as anything.
I don't see how Syria is a national security issue, nor why it is Americas problem to solve.
I think the point is to say that America is back, and Obama is gone.
However, a plan could be made to make Syria safe for Syrians.
Where is the UN in Syria? Oh, I forgot. China and Russia ...
Here, read some stuff, gain some insight:
Win-Win for Trump, who's thinking in four dimensions, doing calculus, while you're working in two dimensions, doing 2+2 = ???
1. In the larger scheme, the attack on Syria had far less to do with Syria than it did in terms of announcing to both our friends and our enemies (Iran, Russia, North Korea, China) that the Obama era of tolerating bullshit from those who would threaten the US or its allies is over.
Did Trump overstep his bounds by attacking Syria? Maybe, but given the fact that that Obama attacked nations with no congressional approval - and did so in a half-assed manner that has made the USA look like a bunch of inept cowards with no resolve - I'm happy (elated is more like it) to give Trump a pass in terms of Constitutional right or wrong.
In terms of principle and fortitude and "making America great again", Trump gets a solid A+ on this one. That he conducted the strike while having chow with the ChiComs - effing brilliant!!! Well played, Donald.
2. There are true libertarians and then there are cowardly fools who hide behind the libertarian label. Our founding fathers could be classified as true libertarians. They would have elected to do the hard, right thing rather than the convenient thing.
In my opinion, we were justified in going into IRAQ in the Bush era when Saddam refused to comply with the terms of agreements regarding inspections, etc. This was a threat to the security of the US. Where I disagree with Bush was the notion of nation building in the Middle East and bringing democracy to that region.
3. Bob Sykes - you should move your candy ass to Sweden or Canada.
Libertarians are afflicted with a grievous human failing - hubris.
"the species is wise, Burke declared. In politics we do well to abide by precedent and precept and even prejudice, for the great mysterious incorporation of the human race has acquired a prescriptive wisdom far greater than any man’s petty private rationality."
I am wondering why Assad would use chemical weapons that would rally the U.S. militarily and the rest of the world emotionally against him. There was of no strategic value for him. Unless it was a bonehead underling that acted on his own. Now the world knows that not all chemical weapons were removed. It is an embarrassment to the Obama administration that Putin outplayed him. It makes no sense.
Dispite the rethoric, it is not an "America First" move. I am on the fence on this one. I hope that Trump did not take the bait of those that want to bring the U.S. further into the middle east conflict.
Yet I am please that once again the U.S. has shown moral authority to stand up to for those you cannot defend themselves.
We really didn't have a choice. Obama/Kerry signed a deal in 2013 with Assad, and the Russians guaranteed performance, that Syria would get rid of all their chemical weapons. They did not, and worse they flaunted this by using them.
If Trump is going to negotiate with anyone in the World, he couldn't just ignore this flagrant violation of a US agreement. He needed to let the world, and Assad, know that going forward, words and agreements will have meaning.
Thank you for clarifing. It makes more sense now.
Especially if North Korea got the message that the game playing is over. How much better those citizens would be be without Kim Jong-un and their dictatorship goverment.
Once they get elected president, they suddenly take the actions of other nations personally, and get involved more than we thought they were going to. Both parties, regardless of what they said going in. I don't have a ready explanation for this, but trace it back, and you'll see what I mean.
the bigger picture,
the Syrian bombing is done, Trump is enjoying an after dinner coffee with the leader of the chi coms, casually mentions " oh by the way about the nroks" smiles and goes on with his coffee :>)
3 dimensional chess
It is too early to have any confidence in the construction of the game plan that is underway. It would be disappointing if it was an Obama, I have no strategy, reaction but that does not seem to be one of Trumps shortcomings. The democrats are slowly realizing that as well.
I think he correctly assessed that he could send a message to the Syrian government (and a few others of course) through the judicious employment of a brace of cruise missiles.
And because they were cruise missiles, no manned US aircraft were at risk of being shot down, particularly by the Russians.
Also, he's not bound to do anything more but retains the initiative to do more if/as he feels it necessary. Makes him "gently menacing", which is a good thing as regards the likes of Syria, Islamists, Iranians, North Koreans and yes, even the Russians.
To quote another US president in another time: "Speak softly and carry a big stick."
Works for me.
I think this was a bad mistake.
I don't see the value in getting involved in a civil war that we have absolutely nothing to gain from.
If Obama had done it, all the flag wavers today would be screaming bloody murder.
Furthermore, I have yet to understand the logic of why it could possibly have been Assad. He didn't need to use chemicals, there's no incentive to piss off the West, and he's pretty soundly beating ISIS at this point with his Russian friends.
Let's let them do the dirty work.
The idea that the North Koreans were sent a message makes no sense to me. If anything, they simply look at it and say "so what?" They have no care about what happens there, and it's no message to them.
On the other hand, the one good thing is it pretty much undermines the supposedly cozy relationship Trump has with Pootie-poot that supports the whole "Russian Connection" nonsense being pushed by the Democrats.
As I noted previously, the missile strike "may" have had little to do with Syria other than Syria providing an opportunity for Trump to announce to our friends and our enemies that the era of the USA tolerating bullshit is over.
Trump correctly calculated that he would suffer very little political backlash in the US. Indeed, he's fired up his base. Using cruise missiles, he didn't risk US planes being shot down and he can now defer to Congress in terms of further hostile actions. As a bonus, he gets to mock the assertions that he's cozy with Putin.
Trump understands that when you're dealing with thugs, you've gotta kick the first thug that challenges you in the nuts to let the other thugs know you're not soft.
Here is an interesting opinion:
The missile strike was a fool's errand.
We have no national interest in Syria.
I fail to see how pounding an adversary that could never hit us back makes us look 'strong'.
Hubris is Trump deciding he is the arbiter of the rules of war. We should not be some sort of warfare referee that rushes in and penalizes on side for "cheating".
I believe, had she been POTUS, HRC would have done the same thing and there would be outrage here at Maggie's.
Assad won't forget this. Who knows? If he survives, perhaps in 15 years he will have proxies over here attempting to get even?
One more thing.
This may not sit well with the Russians. We'll see, but to we really want to play a game of brinkmanship with them over Syria?
A nagging part of me is wondering whether this was mainly to discredit the Left's "Trump is in with the Russians" campaign.
Sort of a "Wag the Dog Part II."
Well played President Trump. Those who contend that the USA has no national interests in the area are short sighted.
To have let that atrocity pass with nothing more than a "strongly worded memo" response would have forever relegated the USA to the same status as (insert name of any uninfluential country...Canada perhaps?)
There were no other options other than the use of raw force that would make any impression in that part of the world.
The other benefits are the signals that the act has sent to the rest of the world as have been mentioned in posts above.
You may not want to be the world's policeman, but the world needs a policeman and you are, warts and all, the only fit candidate.
I don't see how this is a matter of vital national security, and I have a fair professional background in such things. As far as demonstrating backbone to those who might gain from such a demonstration, it was a successful demonstration. By the way, are we building cruise missiles, and how many remain in the arsenal?
I hope we're not getting back in the regime change business again.
Korea was the UN's first real test. Seventy years and eight secretary generals later it's still going on. And now they have nukes.
He spent $120M ($60 to use, and another $60 to replace) of our money to make a point. Was it worth it? What is the point?
1. Just this past week I saw a quote from PDT that he doesn't want to be, and the United States is not the world's policeman.
2. But ... you can have the most vile and wretched and tragic civil war possible, but not with nerve gas, conventional HE arms only please when you are blowing everybody up. I reckon all the wannabe bad actors of the world just got the message: NBC usage and longa-range delivery systems are going to get a rapid disproportionate response.
2.5 I had no confidence that the jug-eared Usurper, would that we had been attacked from without, would have allowed any retaliation. In his world, we deserve all the retribution that comes our way.
3. My libertarian response is ... Syria, so what, if they all want to kill each other, let 'em, this sort of thing has been going on since the beginning of time. Let's not spend our treasure rescuing these idiots from themselves. Let the tragedy happen, it's none of our affair.
4. Nobody will come rescue us if we fall into civil war. On the contrary, they'll all smuggle in arms with gusto to all sides. The entire rest of the world would be more than happy to see a prostrate and exhausted and ruined USA.
5. Don't do this rapid response thing again. All the world's bad boys have just realized that if they mount a fake news false flag operation, they might get the USA to do their dirty work for them. And it's quite clear that our intel orgs are ... unreliable.
And PDT, get your azz over to Congress and give a full accounting. We the People in our Constitution did not give the Federal government the power to be the world's policeman. Preserve, protect, defend and follow the Constitution, and debate and vote to declare in-advance retaliatory war against all who use NBC weapons.
More like $2 ~ 3M each, so closer to $300M. A quarter billion dollar "message".
I'm guessing you're not an accountant. Whatever the cost is, maybe it's $60 million, maybe a little more, that's it. You don't get to count it twice.
While I don't think I am qualified to put forth an opinion, #9, Rolf, makes an excellent point. He says that the Obama agreement with Russia on removing chemical weapons from Syria, forced Trump's hand.
What I do want to ask is why is this conflict going on so long? What do the warring parties want to achieve?
And why aren't the media and the other nations pushing for some peace talks? Do I understand correctly that the war has changed from a civil uprising to some kind of proxy war? Our corrupt media doesn't bother framing the conflict with background or information, and it is difficult to figure the framework of what the parties hope to achieve.
For lots of people history seems to reboot on or about 20 January every four to eight years.