Tomahawk Missiles launched at Syria

[unsinkable]

Launched from destroyers USS Porter and USS Ross

[FaithManor]

What is happening to the Syrian people is just gut wrenching. It makes me cry to think of the children.

[Moonhawk]

Thank you for the notice.

[Audrey]

Ah, yes.  Nothing rallies a people like launching a war. 

[MercyA]

:( Thank you for letting us know. Off to find out more. 

[OneStepAtATime]

Is this because of the chemical attack earlier this week?

[Guest]

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

[PrincessMommy]

Lord have mercy.  That's all I can say without starting something political.   :crying:

[Starr]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39523654

[Mimm]

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. :(

[Barb_]

And it begins.

[MercyA]

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.

[Guest]

I'm no fan of dropping bombs but not dropping bombs hasn't exactly worked either.

[lauraw4321]

I'm no fan of current administration (severe understatement), but reducing Assad's capacity to use chemical weapons on children? I fully support it.

[Georgiana Daniels]

Oh, crap. 

 

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

:(

[Tap]

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.

[Amira]

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.

[Farrar]

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.

 

[Barb_]

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?"

[Amira]

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.

[displace]

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.

[sewingmama]

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

[Guest]

Nm. Apparently I live in an alternate universe.

Edited April 7, 2017 by Kinsa

[Twolittleboys]

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.

[Pawz4me]

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?

[Pam in CT]

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.

[mom2scouts]

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?

[Ausmumof3]

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?

[Lanny]

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.

[Pawz4me]

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

[lauraw4321]

Even if planes and equipment were moved, the runways themselves would be damaged and would reduce their capacity for war.

[displace]

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?

[Amira]

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.

[mom2scouts]

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

[Amira]

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

[poppy]

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.

[bibiche]

 nm

Edited April 7, 2017 by bibiche
Political grenades not welcome.

[Caroline]

Please do not post online where your military family members are stationed overseas. It's just a bad idea.

[Amira]

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.

[Guest]

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?

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?

[Mimm]

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.

[Ausmumof3]

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...

[Amira]

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.

[unsinkable]

Reuters reporting large truck driven into crowd in Sweden.

[Lanny]

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.  

[displace]

Reuters reporting large truck driven into crowd in Sweden.

Is that related?

[unsinkable]

Is that related?

I don't know.

[maize]

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.