Skip to comments.Time for Action to Stop Syrian Chemical Weapons Attacks
Posted on 04/16/2018 7:01:48 AM PDT by Sean_Anthony
Will take no lessons in international law from Russia.
Nikki Haley, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, delivered a blunt message at an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council Saturday. The meeting was convened at Russias request to discuss military strikes conducted by the United States, the United Kingdom, and France against key facilities supporting the Syrian regimes chemical weapons program. It was the fifth meeting of the Security Council last week regarding the reported chemical attack by the Syrian regime on the Damascus suburb of Douma on April 7th. All of the meetings were filled with hot rhetoric but produced no concrete action.
A week has gone by in which we have talked, Ambassador Haley said. The time for talk ended last night. We acted to deter the future use of chemical weapons by holding the Syrian regime responsible for its atrocities against humanity. Ambassador Haley also issued a warning to the Syrian regime and its patrons, Russia and Iran. I spoke to the President this morning and he said if the Syrian regime uses this poison gas again, the United States is locked and loaded. When our President draws a red line, our President enforces the red line.
"Only functioning democracies need apply"
Time for Action to Show Evidence there are Actually Any Syrian Chemical Weapons Attacks
I thought it was time to commit our human and financial resources to making the United States the land of the free; the home of the brave.
Fiddling while Rome burns is no way to MAGA.
“America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.”
John Quincy Adams
“I spoke to the President this morning and he said if the Syrian regime uses this poison gas again, the United States is locked and loaded.”
We destroyed two chemical weapons producer facilities and a chemical weapons storage facility. They were in Syria and Syria had signed an agreement that they GOT RID of their chemical weapons and facilities.
So... why would they even have these facilities that we destroyed ?
“We destroyed two chemical weapons producer facilities and a chemical weapons storage facility.”
If that was actually done, the whole area would be poisoned.
“reported” chemical attack
“Fiddling while Rome burns is no way to MAGA.”
I’m afraid the 70’s are gone. Back when we didn’t get involved until we were forced to, life was simpler and not expendable. But our continual involvement in other people’s business just like the US had in 1775 and again in 1861, are creating an expectation of “service” to countries now beyond our involvement.
Korea, Vietnam, were the crown jewels of our intervention efforts that created that expectation. Then later places like Kosovo were more meals on wheels than anything else. But it got people killed for opinions. And Granada was nothing more than a political move. But it was expected by too many.
So no it’s come to the point we may have to handle 2 or 3 fronts at the same time rather than concentrating on ourselves a little more. But that big white horse is in the corral and ready to go. At least for the politicians.
Oh man, I beg to differ!
It’s not either isolationism or waging war on 2 or 3 fronts; a false choice.
What would JQA say in today’s world where even crap-holes like North Korea can threaten us from half a world away?
I really don’t care what Syria does, unless it targets the US. Why are cooperating with the UK, to one state that DID try to interfere in the US election?
“waging war on 2 or 3 fronts; a false choice.”
The last major war we were involved with was WW II. And that ended around 70 years ago. We have been putting out fires militarily since. So when we hit that 2 or 3 hot spot max we will be in a lot of trouble trying to support more.
We have military all over the world to support those “hot spots.”
For the army:
12,000 assigned to Afghanistan, 6,000 in Iraq mainly for support to Mosul, 750 in Syria with 1000 in the trucks ready to role, Kuwait has around 19,000 of which 3800 deployed from the 1st cav on their combat team arrived last last year, Somalia is supported by the 101st airborne.
Support troops for the areas are in Poland with 4th inf armored supporting Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, and Hungary. And in South Korea we have around 23.500 of different branches posted.
And that’s just the army. The navy, marines, air force, and national guard are in other spots for support or lead of possible problems. We even have marines on the coast of Norway to control the Russian border problems we have there. And the amount of troops in Africa is sensitive.
I pray we keep them at just two or three....even at a time. Trying to support multiple locations will stretch our capacity so choices will have to be made that will not be in the peoples’ best interest at the location. They may have to fend for themselves.
We’re good, but we don’t do the impossible on a daily basis. Ever wonder why there are so many re-deployments downrange for soldiers so close together. You can’t fill a 5 gallon bucket with 3 gallons unless you use the same water.
You missed the first part of my sentence that compared isolationism to multiple conflicts. That was the false choice I was referring to.
My original point was that given the problems and issues we have here (vulnerable electric grid, illegal invasion, aging infrastructure, etc.), we can ill afford to be engaged in endless and expensive wars and police the world. We’re handling everyone else’s problems and neglecting the very serious and pressing problems of our own.
You may have noticed the swamp has not been drained as of yet.
You mentioned the 1970’s are gone. Well so are the ‘80’s and 90’s. High time to get back to the fundamentals.
“You may have noticed the swamp has not been drained as of yet.”
And won’t be. We can’t even straighten out our own, so called, supporters starting with the head of each house, Ryan and McConnell.
I think you are trying to make isolationism and multiple conflicts as opposites. In the case of Russia, they substitute one for the other and have since they got hammered pretty badly by Germany in WW II. They have had a horrible fear of invasion as they have been many times over their history. They fended off the invaders, but at a heavy price each time. They literally burned their bridges behind them and waited for winter to freeze out those that dared to go into their “turf.”
So they took that new tact I mentioned and “bribed” other little countries, like N Korea and now Syria, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, and a number of other middle east countries, to fight their little smoke screen conflicts to keep the world busy and forget them, for them. They delegated.
“I think you are trying to make isolationism and multiple conflicts as opposites.”
I was saying that just because I don’t want to engage in endless and expensive wars/conflicts doesn’t mean I do want to live in isolation. It is not an either/or proposition.
My only point is that it is foolhardy to waste the lives of America’s best and trillions of dollars in endless and senseless foreign entanglements while neglecting to solve our own very serious problems.
I understand people disagree.
Completely agree with this post. We are wasting our best to fight someone else’s civil wars while Russia supplies the armaments and parts of the confusion to make it extend longer and longer while they sell their wares and try to appear to stay independent of the conflicts. But the expansion of their political theories still carries forward by using the foolish evil needs of their chosen lag dogs. So they are just as guilty as the little third world countries they support, profit from, and gain votes from in world agencies like the UN and military support from in their trade efforts.
So they are living in isolation by not putting boots on the ground and selling their position. We aren’t.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.