unsinkable Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 Launched from destroyers USS Porter and USS Ross 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaithManor Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 What is happening to the Syrian people is just gut wrenching. It makes me cry to think of the children. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonhawk Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 Thank you for the notice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 Ah, yes. Nothing rallies a people like launching a war. 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MercyA Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 :( Thank you for letting us know. Off to find out more. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneStepAtATime Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 Is this because of the chemical attack earlier this week? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 Supposedly, though the attack was one in a very long line of chemical attacks, which have not previously moved those in power. Yes, we care about beautiful little babies dying in a chemical attack, but not when they are starving in a refugee camp. /sarcasm 15 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrincessMommy Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 Lord have mercy. That's all I can say without starting something political. :crying: 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starr Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39523654 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mimm Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 What is happening to the Syrian people is just gut wrenching. It makes me cry to think of the children. Me too. As much as I'd love to see Assad not in power, I kind of doubt this will actually fix anything. :( 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb_ Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 And it begins. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MercyA Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 It's really, really hard not to be cynical. There is such a thing as just seeing things as they are. :( What do you do about such horror? I don't know the answer. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 I'm no fan of dropping bombs but not dropping bombs hasn't exactly worked either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lauraw4321 Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 I'm no fan of current administration (severe understatement), but reducing Assad's capacity to use chemical weapons on children? I fully support it. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgiana Daniels Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 Oh, crap. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 :( 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tap Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 Prayers for peace and healing for the innocents involved. Prayers for wisom and grace for those in power. Prayers for the military and civilians for wisdom, fortitide, peace and forgiveness. 15 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amira Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 Hoping for a response that addresses the needs of *all* of the people who have suffered because of Assad, whether they still live in Syria or have fled elsewhere. 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrar Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 I'm not a total pacifist... but it's just so reactive. If we had a policy. A plan. A vision. One that included local people preferably, but even just a comprehensive approach to the region. But we don't. Things happen, we jump up and do something. Then we back down and do nothing. It's absurd. 34 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb_ Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 I'm not a total pacifist... but it's just so reactive. If we had a policy. A plan. A vision. One that included local people preferably, but even just a comprehensive approach to the region. But we don't. Things happen, we jump up and do something. Then we back down and do nothing. It's absurd. You just put your finger on what is bothering me the most. The reactivity. It seems to be more about, "What will people say about us if we do nothing?" 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amira Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 I'm not a total pacifist... but it's just so reactive. If we had a policy. A plan. A vision. One that included local people preferably, but even just a comprehensive approach to the region. But we don't. Things happen, we jump up and do something. Then we back down and do nothing. It's absurd. This exactly. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
displace Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 I'm not a total pacifist... but it's just so reactive. If we had a policy. A plan. A vision. One that included local people preferably, but even just a comprehensive approach to the region. But we don't. Things happen, we jump up and do something. Then we back down and do nothing. It's absurd. Or even just basic discussion with Congress. Support wasn't there before for attacks. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sewingmama Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 (edited) And how will that help ? :(The missiles were launched at a military airfield, storage sheds, places like that. Its a bid to destroy chemical weapons and the ability to use them. As an aside its probably also meant to warn Assad he better wise up because other countries are not pleased with his actions. It seems Trump has the support of most Western countries. Yes its a sovereign nation but at what point do other countries say enough is enough...one person should not be able to slaughter his own people just because he's the President or whatever. If the President won't protect his own country's citizens then who will? Edited April 7, 2017 by sewingmama 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 (edited) Nm. Apparently I live in an alternate universe. Edited April 7, 2017 by Kinsa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twolittleboys Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 The missiles were launched at a military airfield, storage sheds, places like that. Its a bid to destroy chemical weapons and the ability to use them. As an aside its probably also meant to show Assad he better wise up because other countries are not pleased. It seems Trump has the support of most Western countries. Yes its a sovereign nation but at what point do other countries say enough is enough...one person should not be able to slaughter his own people just because he's the President or whatever. If the President won't protect his own country's citizens then who will? There is a lot to be said for this but a) unfortunately there are many, many places in which people in charge commit atrocities against their people - it is difficult to say when it is okay to interfer as clearly noone can fix it all and b) unfortunately, it is never easy. There are so many other players with varying agendas involved and it is difficult/impossible to anticipate long-range effects Please note this is not a condemnation of what happened - I am actually rather unsure what I think about it (and that is pretty rare). We will just have to see how it develops. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pawz4me Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 The missiles were launched at a military airfield, storage sheds, places like that. Its a bid to destroy chemical weapons and the ability to use them. As an aside its probably also meant to warn Assad he better wise up because other countries are not pleased with his actions. It seems Trump has the support of most Western countries. Yes its a sovereign nation but at what point do other countries say enough is enough...one person should not be able to slaughter his own people just because he's the President or whatever. If the President won't protect his own country's citizens then who will? Well, saying to that regime, "Hey, stop using chemical weapons, or else!" and then never actually doing anything, was not an effective strategy. No one wants to get into another war, but chemical weapons cannot be tolerated.Taking out the air force base was not "reactive", it was targeted specifically as the source of the weapons. Hopefully, anymore gas canisters were destroyed as well. I'm certainly not an expert but I believe they would have tried very hard to NOT hit any chemical weapons containers. Hitting them with a missile would release the chemicals into the air and I think they wouldn't want that. I'm reading some support for that on Twitter, but who knows if the people saying that know anymore about it than I do? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pam in CT Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 On NPR this morning the report FWIW was that a storage facility believed to contain chemical weapon supplies was intentionally NOT targeted, because the US military didn't want to create a flume cloud that could float over civilian populations. There are no easy or simple quick fixes to Syria. There never have been. I concur with the calls starting to emerge from both sides of the aisle (albeit perhaps coming from different reasoning) that DT should go to Congress for discussion of a broader long term strategy rationale before escalating further. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mom2scouts Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 Yes, we care about beautiful little babies dying in a chemical attack, but not when they are starving in a refugee camp. /sarcasm You do realize that we have soldiers on the ground in the countries that are taking massive amounts of refugees and helping to feed those people in refugee camps, right? 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ausmumof3 Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 I'm certainly not an expert but I believe they would have tried very hard to NOT hit any chemical weapons containers. Hitting them with a missile would release the chemicals into the air and I think they wouldn't want that. I'm reading some support for that on Twitter, but who knows if the people saying that know anymore about it than I do? Yeah I was wondering about that. I guess it would have to be aimed at destroying the capability to use them not actually at the agents themselves? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanny Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 The base they hit with a precision attack is the base where the chemical weapons are manufactured and where the planes took off from, several days ago, dropped their chemical weapons and then returned to that base. Those missiles are accurate to within 10 feet (or 10 meters?) and hit their intended targets. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pawz4me Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 (edited) According to this ABC news report eyewitnesses say the Syrian military anticipated the attack and moved equipment and personnel ahead of it. Which is not at all surprising. They would or should have anticipated at least the possibility of retaliation. And we reportedly gave Russian advance notice. They would certainly have informed their Syrian allies. Which means this was essentially all a show. Edited April 7, 2017 by Pawz4me 13 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lauraw4321 Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 Even if planes and equipment were moved, the runways themselves would be damaged and would reduce their capacity for war. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
displace Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 Even if planes and equipment were moved, the runways themselves would be damaged and would reduce their capacity for war. I wonder if that is the best way to go about this? To send off missiles to destroy runways as a goal? Idk. I am not versed in military strategy but was this strategic or reactive? If our country wants to do something, why warn Russia first? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amira Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 You do realize that we have soldiers on the ground in the countries that are taking massive amounts of refugees and helping to feed those people in refugee camps, right? Unfortunately, the recent attempt to indefinitely ban all Syrian refugees from entry to the US seriously damages our credibility if we try to claim that we are willing to do much for Syrians, not to mention slashing the quota so dramatically for refugee entry. It would take a massive financial and military commitment for us to really make a difference on the ground in neighboring countries, especially when most refugees aren't living in camps. 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mom2scouts Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 (edited) Unfortunately, the recent attempt to indefinitely ban all Syrian refugees from entry to the US seriously damages our credibility if we try to claim that we are willing to do much for Syrians, not to mention slashing the quota so dramatically for refugee entry. It would take a massive financial and military commitment for us to really make a difference on the ground in neighboring countries, especially when most refugees aren't living in camps. We know that the Syrian refugee camps have been infiltrated by ISIS, so being careful about taking refugees makes sense. Edited April 7, 2017 by mom2scouts 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amira Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 (edited) Well, I can't say too much because [edited for privacy of the original poster] but we know that the Syrian refugee camps have been infiltrated by ISIS, so being careful about taking refugees makes sense. And I have friends running refugee camps in the region. While it would statistically be expected that ISIS supporters have fled as refugees, because so many Syrians have had to flee their homes, that doesn't mean that banning Syrian refugees as a whole is a reasonable way to keep Americans safe. That's why we have an extensive vetting process. Edited April 7, 2017 by Amira 13 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 According to this ABC news report eyewitnesses say the Syrian military anticipated the attack and moved equipment and personnel ahead of it. Which is not at all surprising. They would or should have anticipated at least the possibility of retaliation. And we reportedly gave Russian advance notice. They would certainly have informed their Syrian allies. Which means this was essentially all a show. All a show except 9 civilians, including 4 children, were killed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bibiche Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 (edited) nm Edited April 7, 2017 by bibiche Political grenades not welcome. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caroline Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 Please do not post online where your military family members are stationed overseas. It's just a bad idea. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amira Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 Please do not post online where your military family members are stationed overseas. It's just a bad idea. Thanks. I just edited my post so I'm not quoting anything like that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 You do realize that we have soldiers on the ground in the countries that are taking massive amounts of refugees and helping to feed those people in refugee camps, right? Yes, I do realize that. I am not anti-military. I am pro-human. My remark is about the awful irony of saying how horrible it is that babies and little children suffered and died as a result of this chemical attack, while babies, children, women and men are starving and drowning and dying in an attempt to flee the horrors there while "we" in the US have slammed shut the door on Syrians indefinately. (Or such is the intention.) So, do we only care about the publicized horror du jour, or do we think it is an atrocity that people are suffering and dying daily? 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 I don't think that the air strike was intended to be a shock and awe incineration of Syrian troops. We don't need a body count in order to show that it succeeded in doing what it intended to do. What, exactly, did it intend to do? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mimm Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 Yes, I do realize that. I am not anti-military. I am pro-human. My remark is about the awful irony of saying how horrible it is that babies and little children suffered and died as a result of this chemical attack, while babies, children, women and men are starving and drowning and dying in an attempt to flee the horrors there while "we" in the US have slammed shut the door on Syrians indefinately. (Or such is the intention.) So, do we only care about the publicized horror du jour, or do we think it is an atrocity that people are suffering and dying daily? It's always like that. The attention grabbing tragic headline always inspires more emotion than our every day mundane tragedies. But people who died in a chemical attack still deserve to be mourned, and people who have died fleeing Syria also deserve to be mourned. :( I hate that we as a country are so unwilling to bring people here, but the fact is, we can't relocate an entire country. No matter how many we take in (and we should take some in) there will always be more in need. Something else needs to be done to alleviate the situation over there. I'm not at all convinced this is the answer, but it does feel like we have to do something, more than humanitarian aid, something to send a message to Assad that he can't go on like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ausmumof3 Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 I wonder if that is the best way to go about this? To send off missiles to destroy runways as a goal? Idk. I am not versed in military strategy but was this strategic or reactive? If our country wants to do something, why warn Russia first? Because you don't want to risk injuring Russian personnel... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amira Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 I'm not necessarily opposed to air strikes, because I have no idea what would help in Syria. I am utterly horrified by the mixed signals this sends. Two months ago we were trying to ban Syrian refugees. Last week we were saying the US doesn't consider removal of Assad a priority. Assad is the very same man today as he was ten days ago, just with one more chemical attack under his belt. The people killed in the chemical attack are from the very same banned population. The region is still as complicated as ever and can't be fixed with toughness. These air strikes will have consequences, both with US foreign policy in Syria and also our relations with Russia, the rest of Europe, and the rest of the Middle East. 17 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unsinkable Posted April 7, 2017 Author Share Posted April 7, 2017 Reuters reporting large truck driven into crowd in Sweden. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanny Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 They know that the Russians knew that Chemical Weapons were being loaded onto that aircraft. The Russians apparently did not try to stop the attack this week from happening? 450,000 (?) Syrians have died in this Civil War so far. Using Chemical Weapons against innocent civilians is going too far.. They have the Radar Tracking, showing the route of that aircraft, departing from that base, dropping the weapons, and then returning to that base. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
displace Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 Reuters reporting large truck driven into crowd in Sweden. Is that related? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unsinkable Posted April 7, 2017 Author Share Posted April 7, 2017 Is that related? I don't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maize Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 I also have no idea what would help. Sometimes war is the only way to stop evil people. War is always devastating, and there are always innocent victims. As a military policy the US in recent decades really has made an effort to minimize civilian casualties. HELP for displaced and hurting people can only be a good thing. So yeah, maybe air strikes aren't a bad idea--some kind of action against Assad may be a good idea. I don't know. Helping refugees is definitely, 100% a good idea. Lets do a lot more of that whether we ramp up military engagement or not. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.