Funny you know Omaha did bomb Syria and guess what? Republicans said that was against the law and need congressional approval. Did they give it? No. Want to try again? Originally Posted by FirePhoenix
It was the first direct attack on the Syrian regime.I believe that CNN is correct, but it is also true that Obama requested authority for similar action against Syria in 2013 and was turned down by Republicans.
From CNN
On Thursday, US warships launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at a Syrian government airbase, the first time the US has directly attacked the Assad regime in the country's six-year civil war.
So you want to try again? Originally Posted by Kickrocks
I believe that CNN is correct, but it is also true that Obama requested authority for similar action against Syria in 2013 and was turned down by Republicans.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/politi...ump/index.html
And will the bombing of Syria be a positive or a negative? Time will tell.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b00de14103d8f4 Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX
Something needed to be done. Time will tell for sure. Probably turn into another us/ Russia proxy war. Originally Posted by KickrocksBut the question that can always be asked is why should the U.S. get involved? Trump made it crystal clear during the Presidential campaign that "We cannot be the world's policeman." We invaded Iraq to get rid of nonexistent weapons of mass destruction and have lost over 4,400 soldiers. About 32,000 wounded. Syria, and the world, would be better off with Assad gone, depending on who replaces him. But at what cost to the U.S.? The bombing of the air base in Syria was a symbolic gesture. Planes were taking off from the struck airbase the next day and the same city that was hit by the chemical attacks was hit again with "normal" bombs.
But the question that can always be asked is why should the U.S. get involved? Trump made it crystal clear during the Presidential campaign that "We cannot be the world's policeman." We invaded Iraq to get rid of nonexistent weapons of mass destruction and have lost over 4,400 soldiers. About 32,000 wounded. Syria, and the world, would be better off with Assad gone, depending on who replaces him. But at what cost to the U.S.? The bombing of the air base in Syria was a symbolic gesture. Planes were taking off from the struck airbase the next day and the same city that was hit by the chemical attacks was hit again with "normal" bombs.
We can put replacing Obamacare and lowering taxes on the back burner for now. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX
Being the strongest superpower, I believe we have an obligation to help the people being slautered. If we can help and dont, then we are not much better than the ones doing it.Assad has been slaughtering people in Syria for quite a while.
People say all the time that we are not the world police and we should stay out these type of things. I sure hope if one day our government decides to do something like that to us we get outside intervention.
I'm sure he got more details and images of what happened and changed his mind. Originally Posted by Kickrocks
Assad has been slaughtering people in Syria for quite a while.
"Estimates of deaths in the Syrian Civil War, per opposition activist groups, vary between 321,358 and 470,000. On 23 April 2016, the United Nations and Arab League Envoy to Syria put out an estimate of 400,000 that had died in the war. UNICEF reported that over 500 children had been killed by early February 2012."
Over 93,000 of those killed were civilians. It wasn't until the recent chemical attack that the U.S. took action?
All I'm saying is that one of Trump's campaign promises to the American people was the U.S. first. Shows how little Trump knew about politics at that time. I'm also saying the bombing of the airfield did NOTHING! Symbolic gesture. Now what? Send in troops? Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX