Trump: 'mission accomplished' on 'perfectly executed' Syria strike

[BuriramSam]

6 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Accepting the limited Syrian engagement as a success, what other actions by 45 and his Brit and French partners are you referring to to constitute "another"?

Probably the previous president's brilliant decision to send US troops in the first place, yes? Of course, Assad being a "reformer", some may question the wisdom in this. 

 

I was against our involvement then. I remain against it now.

[bristolboy]

Just now, BuriramSam said:

Someone has some reading rather than ranting to do.

Once again, instead of specifically addressing the points raised,   you resort to name calling. At least some the US, French, and UK  missiles hit their target. You can't even manage that.

[BuriramSam]

7 hours ago, Skywalker69 said:

 Even more reason to oppose US intervention now, though I concede my objections are based more on principle.

[BuriramSam]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Once again, instead of specifically addressing the points raised,   you resort to name calling. At least some the US, French, and UK  missiles hit their target. You can't even manage that.

I have done no name-calling. Feel free to point out any if I am in error.  I think it would be advisable for you to read and get answers to your own questions. I am satisfied with my opposition to our intervention in Syria and have been against it since it began several years ago. But feel free to voice your longing for more war mongering by the US government if it suits you.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, BuriramSam said:

I have done no name-calling. Feel free to point out any if I am in error.  I think it would be advisable for you to read and get answers to your own questions. I am satisfied with my opposition to our intervention in Syria and have been against it since it began several years ago. But feel free to voice your longing for more war mongering by the US government if it suits you.

You accused me of ranting with explaining way.

 

[bristolboy]

12 minutes ago, BuriramSam said:

Probably the previous president's brilliant decision to send US troops in the first place, yes? Of course, Assad being a "reformer", some may question the wisdom in this. 

 

I was against our involvement then. I remain against it now.

So you condemn the bombing but blame Obama instead of Trump? Do you understand that Obama, as an ex-President, is no longer in charge of foreign policy? That he had nothing to do with this latest attack?

[BuriramSam]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

You accused me of ranting with explaining way.

 

And I was and am correct. Thanks for pointing out the facts. 

[BuriramSam]

6 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

So you condemn the bombing but blame Obama instead of Trump? Do you understand that Obama, as an ex-President, is no longer in charge of foreign policy? That he had nothing to do with this latest attack?

I did not say that, nor do I understand how a rational person would come to that conclusion based on my posts on this thread.

 

I am normal, not a partisan knee twitcher. I blame each president for their own actions. Donald Trump is 100% responsible for this attack as well as every activity or military has engaged in since his inauguration day. I remain opposed to our intervention there. I hope that clears things up for you.

Edited April 15, 2018 by BuriramSam
Typo

[bristolboy]

6 minutes ago, BuriramSam said:

And I was and am correct. Thanks for pointing out the facts. 

A response that's functionally equivalent to "nah nah nah nah nah." Of course the people who use that tactic are children, and, as such, are to be excused.

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, BuriramSam said:

I did not say that, not do I understand how a rational person would come to that conclusion based on my posts on this thread.

 

I am normal, not a partisan knee twitcher. I blame each president for their own actions. Donald Trump is 100% responsible for this attack as well as every activity or military has engagedin since inauguration day. I remain opposed to our intervention there. I hope that clears things up for you.

Not partisan but until cornered you somehow managed not to assign blame to Trump.

[BuriramSam]

 

11 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Not partisan but until cornered you somehow managed not to assign blame to Trump.

 

Wht would I blame Trump for saying " mission accomplished"? You do realize that's the thread topic, yes? 

[BuriramSam]

14 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

A response that's functionally equivalent to "nah nah nah nah nah." Of course the people who use that tactic are children, and, as such, are to be excused.

 Wrong. It's the functional equivalent of you being taken to the wood shed.

[bristolboy]

Just now, BuriramSam said:

 

 

Wht would I blame Trump for saying " mission accomplished"? You do realize that's the thread topic, yes? 

No, the question is why would you blame Obama for Trump saying "mission accomplished."?

[BuriramSam]

Just now, bristolboy said:

No, the question is why would you blame Obama for Trump saying "mission accomplished."?

Why do you think I blame Obama for Trump saying it? That seems very odd to me.

[bristolboy]

20 minutes ago, BuriramSam said:

Why do you think I blame Obama for Trump saying it? That seems very odd to me.

Because you invoked his actions in Syria in response to an article that mentioned him more or less 0 times. 

[BuriramSam]

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Because you invoked his actions in Syria in response to an article that mentioned him more or less 0 times. 

Not very sound logic. Here, let me clear things up for you. Each person is responsible for the words that come out of their mouth.

 

I would prefer you step it up and debate actual issues. Let's try to get on track here. Do you prefer more or less US military action in Syria?

[lannarebirth]

6 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Because you invoked his actions in Syria in response to an article that mentioned him more or less 0 times. 

 

Looks like someone lost their password again.

[bristolboy]

36 minutes ago, BuriramSam said:

Not very sound logic. Here, let me clear things up for you. Each person is responsible for the words that come out of their mouth.

 

I would prefer you step it up and debate actual issues. Let's try to get on track here. Do you prefer more or less US military action in Syria?

No, the thread is about the attack on Syria's chemical weapons factories. You seem unable to summon the same harshness in your judgement of Trump that you apply to others who have had some hand in staging similar actions.

[mikebike]

What has struck me most on the recent threads regarding Syria is there seems to be consensus from all camps that further/continuing engagement there is stupid. Blame whomever but git the frack out seems to be fair enough!!

[BuriramSam]

3 hours ago, bristolboy said:

No, the thread is about the attack on Syria's chemical weapons factories. You seem unable to summon the same harshness in your judgement of Trump that you apply to others who have had some hand in staging similar actions.

The post is specifically about Trump saying "mission accomplished". It's in the subject heading. And if my multiple assertions that I disagree with Trump getting us further involved in Syria isn't good enough for you, that's just too bad for you.

 

Now... I am politely asking you to show me this equity of criticism harshness you desire to see from me. How about some examples of you engaging in what you expect from me?

 

Better yet, why not simply discuss and debate the actual topic? Do you have a problem with Trump's use of the term? Of do, why? I will be happy to discuss the matter with anyone.

Edited April 16, 2018 by BuriramSam
Additional info

[bristolboy]

49 minutes ago, BuriramSam said:

The post is specifically about Trump saying "mission accomplished". It's in the subject heading. And if my multiple assertions that I disagree with Trump getting us further involved in Syria isn't good enough for you, that's just too bad for you.

 

Now... I am politely asking you to show me this equity of criticism harshness you desire to see from me. How about some examples of you engaging in what you expect from me?

 

Better yet, why not simply discuss and debate the actual topic? Do you have a problem with Trump's use of the term? Of do, why? I will be happy to discuss the matter with anyone.

And I very very specifically addressed the question. Let me repeat it to you:

"Well, how do you define success? Is it how the US military defined the mission? Destroying those facilities? In that case, it was a success. Is it going to have any effect on the progress of the civil war? In ohter words, did it really matter?  The Syrians had plenty of time to move whatever resources were movable to Russian bases where they were protected. Will the Russians and/or the Iranians, the chief backers of the Assad regime modify their support in any way because of this attack. Doesn't seem so."

 

[BuriramSam]

6 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

And I very very specifically addressed the question. Let me repeat it to you:

"Well, how do you define success? Is it how the US military defined the mission? Destroying those facilities? In that case, it was a success. Is it going to have any effect on the progress of the civil war? In ohter words, did it really matter?  The Syrians had plenty of time to move whatever resources were movable to Russian bases where they were protected. Will the Russians and/or the Iranians, the chief backers of the Assad regime modify their support in any way because of this attack. Doesn't seem so."

 

 

Good luck getting the answers to your questions.

[dave_boo]

I am nowhere near a Trump fan, but this anti-Trump hysteria is getting really old.

 

Putting that aside I believe the mission was a success.  Were the operating plants taken out?  Yes.  Was there a minimal loss of life - on both sides?  Yes.  Was the coalition able to demonstrate the capability to strike with impunity and signal that there are red lines that shouldn't be crossed?  Yes.

 

Now to the trickier questions.  Will it have an effect on the length of the civil war?  I highly doubt it.  Should the coalition put boots on the ground to change that dynamic?  I'm thoroughly against that.  While I am empathetic and believe in self-determination I don't think that in this case it is worth putting other civilians' lives on the line.  If nothing has been learned from removing Saddam and Gaddafi from power than history is just going to repeat itself.  Is Bashir a psychopath likely on their level?  It would appear so.  Is the apparent alternative worst for most everyone in the area?  I humbly submit that it is.  So is the loss of coalition soldiers to bring about another Iraq post-Saddam or Libya post-Gaddafi something we should strive for?  I would like to think that sane people would say no.

 

In my view the relatively small amount that was spent on missiles compared to the pallets of money that Russia and Iran are apparently spending in their operations indicates it is a good ROI.  Having them get mired down in a relatively insignificant area while expending resources can only be a good thing for the rest of the free world.

[Morch]

10 hours ago, BuriramSam said:

Probably the previous president's brilliant decision to send US troops in the first place, yes? Of course, Assad being a "reformer", some may question the wisdom in this. 

 

I was against our involvement then. I remain against it now.

 

You've already been corrected about the "reformer" nonsense. Doesn't do your "arguments", such as they are, much service.

[Rimmer]

An unsupported conspiracy theory has been removed

[lannarebirth]

15 hours ago, BuriramSam said:

The post is specifically about Trump saying "mission accomplished". It's in the subject heading. And if my multiple assertions that I disagree with Trump getting us further involved in Syria isn't good enough for you, that's just too bad for you.

 

Now... I am politely asking you to show me this equity of criticism harshness you desire to see from me. How about some examples of you engaging in what you expect from me?

 

Better yet, why not simply discuss and debate the actual topic? Do you have a problem with Trump's use of the term? Of do, why? I will be happy to discuss the matter with anyone.

 

We live in a world that that has been financialized. All wars are for the furtherance of financial goals. Couch potatoes and Investment bank trading desks can all participate in the profits with none of the risks. Mission accomplished!

 

http://www.mauldineconomics.com/this-week-in-geopolitics/the-far-reaches-of-us-soft-power

 

 

[BuriramSam]

14 hours ago, Morch said:

 

You've already been corrected about the "reformer" nonsense. 

 

Link?

[Morch]

5 hours ago, BuriramSam said:

 

Link?

 

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/1033687-trump-orders-strikes-against-syria-over-chemical-weapons-attack/?page=17&tab=comments#comment-12895111

 

[Silurian]

A photo of the briefing of the strike.

 

 

[Scott]

Posts and replies removed.