Posted on 04/07/2017 7:07:02 PM PDT by P-Marlowe
Trump just instigated an unprovoked missile attack on a Sovereign Nation that posed no direct or immediate threat to our National Security or American Citizens.
Explain to me why this act of war without any input from Congress is consistent with our Founding Documents and our Constitution?
They are ALL ISIS. They are all radical Jewish and Christian killing Muslim Fanatics.
When Assad is gone all Holy Hell is going to take place -- Unless the Russians install a secular strong man to replace him. Obviously we don't have any intention of doing that.
The counter story is that it was a weapons cache and the Syrian attack blew up the rebel gas stored there.
Why did the US avoid the gas sto ks at the Syrian camps they attacked with cruise missiles?
An inspection team could determine which.
The rebels have used gas before.
From 2013
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/
And, don't give a rat's behind whether these rebel groups live or die but it is not acceptable to use chemical weapons in a area where we have troops, let alone on a hospital with children in it.
Did congress decide there was an "offense against the law of nations"? Or did Trump make that decision?
Did Congress decide the "punishment" for that offense? Or Did Trump make that decision?
I don't think this clause gives the President the authorization you think it does. Under that clause, the President only has the power to carry out the punishment that Congress decides on.
Why did Syria have hundreds of thousands of Christians living there under Assad and other islamic countries did not?
Why did the genocide start once ISIS and other jihad rebels decided to overthrow Assad?
They are only about 150 miles apart.
How fast is that by fighter jet?
15 minutes?
Sure it is.
Current military situation:
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war
Location of Khan Sheikhoun, Syria
What does that have to do with Assad's use of chemical weapons?
Yes, it was stupid and immoral for Obama to back the rebels. But, that doesn't absolve Assad's use of chemical weapons.
What does that have to do with Assad's use of chemical weapons?
Yes, it was stupid and immoral for Obama to back the rebels. But, that doesn't absolve Assad's use of chemical weapons.
Syria claims that when their aircraft bombed Khan Sheikhoun a bomb struck a "rebel" arsenal and that the chemicals are from the arsenal and not from their bomb.
The US attacked Shayrat airbase, the origin of the Syrian bombing flight.
Oct 31, 2013 - Syria’s declared equipment for producing, mixing and filling chemical weapons has been destroyed, the international watchdog says.
This comes a day before the deadline set by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).
The weapons have been placed under seal, an OPCW spokesman said.
Inspectors were sent to Syria following allegations, denied by the government, that its forces had used chemical weapons in civilian areas.
Now that the equipment has been put beyond use, Syria has until mid-2014 to destroy the chemical weapons themselves.
In Washington, US state department official Thomas Countryman said: “I am increasingly confident that we will be able to complete this task... within the target date of 30 June of next year”.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24754460
Jun 23, 2014 - Syria has handed over the last of its declared stockpile of chemical weapons, which will be destroyed at sea over the next two months, the UN’s chemical weapons watchdog has said.
The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical weapons (OPCW) announced that the final 8% of Syria’s acknowledged arsenal of chemical weapons and precursors had been loaded on to a Danish freighter.
The ship, the Ark Futura, is now sailing to the Italian port of Gioia Tauro for a rendezvous with an American vessel, the MV Cape Ray, which is specially equipped to neutralise the most dangerous of the chemical agents at sea.
“The mission to eliminate Syria’s chemical weapons programme has been a major undertaking marked by an extraordinary international cooperation,” said Ahmet Uzumcu, the OPCW’s director-general. “Never before has an entire arsenal of a category of weapons of mass destruction been removed from a country experiencing a state of internal armed conflict. And this has been accomplished within very demanding and tight timeframes.”
However, Uzumcu added that the OPCW was not in a position to certify that Syria no longer had any chemical weapons. The materials removed were those that the regime had declared.
Western governments claim to have intelligence suggesting that Damascus has not admitted to all its chemical arms. An OPCW investigation team has found evidence that chlorine gas was used against civilians in recent months “in a systematic manner”, but the team has been unable to reach the site for further investigation because it came under attack.
Possession of chlorine is not a violation of the chemical weapons treaty, as it is a commonly used chemical, so Syria was not required to list chlorine on its declared inventory. But its use as a weapon is a violation of international law.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/23/syria-chemical-weapons-final-destruction-un-deadline
Apr 2017 - Syria claims that when their aircraft bombed Khan Sheikhoun a bomb struck an arsenal and that the chemicals are from the arsenal and not from their bomb. Chlorine is the chemical agent suspected.
Is this claim plausible?
In February, 2016, then CIA director John Brennan stated during a “60 Minutes” interview, “We have a number of instances where ISIL has used chemical munitions on the battlefield.” “The CIA believes that ISIS has the ability to manufacture small quantities of chlorine and mustard gas.” http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cia-director-john-brennan-60-minutes-scott-pelley/
In November, 2016, The New York Times wrote, “The Islamic State has used chemical weapons, including chlorine and sulfur mustard agents, at least 52 times on the battlefield in Syria and Iraq since it swept to power in 2014, according to a new independent analysis.” https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/world/middleeast/isis-chemical-weapons-syria-iraq-mosul.html
October, 2014, The Washington Post reports, “[IS uses] chlorine gas against Iraqi security forces”. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/islamic-state-militants-allegedly-used-chlorine-gas-against-iraqi-security-forces/2014/10/23/c865c943-1c93-4ac0-a7ed-033218f15cbb_story.html
July, 2015, The New York Times reports, “ISIS Has Fired Chemical Mortar Shells”, “The Islamic State appears to have manufactured rudimentary chemical warfare shells” https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/18/world/middleeast/islamic-state-isis-chemical-weapons-iraq-syria.html
September, 2016, Fox News reports, “ISIS believed to have attacked US base in Iraq with chemical agent” http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/09/21/isis-may-have-attacked-us-base-in-iraq-with-chemical-agent.html
The US government believes ISIS possesses and can manufacture chemical weapons, including chlorine. There are reports over the past several years of ISIS using chemical weapons.
Is there a doubt that ISIS would store or manufacture chemical weapons or their precursors among civilians? ISIS puts people in cages and sets them on fire, hangs people by their limbs and roasts them alive, beheads people, sometimes in mass-beheadings. There is no doubt that ISIS would not hesitate.
The US says it has tracked a Syrian plane from Shayrat Airfield to Khan Sheikoun, and back to Shayrat Airfield. Syria does not dispute this. This does not prove Syria delivered a chemical weapon.
I am not saying Syria did or did not drop chemical munitions, only that Syria’s claim appears plausible.
ROFLOL....And, you, like John Kerry, believed this? Unbelievable.
If you were a Christian living in Syria would you rather have Assad in charge or Isis in charge or sunni rebel jihadists in charge?
Do you have anything to support your position?
Under the war powers act which authorizes Trump’s actions here. He met all legal obligations of notice and it was accepted by both sides.
The anti-Trumps need to back off.
Congress delegated that authority to the executive branch to act quickly if needed and then to check with congress for further actions. Its a necessary safe guard since the normal political process is too slow to be effective.
The six-page National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction is based on the classified National Security Presidential Directive 17, which the president signed in September 2002. That directive is official U.S. policy.
According to the strategy, the Bush administration’s approach to dealing with weapons of mass destruction rests upon “three pillars”: counterproliferation, nonproliferation, and WMD consequence management.
Devoted to denying, preventing, and responding to the use of weapons of mass destruction by other countries or terrorists, the administration’s strategy is predicated in part on the continued possession and possible use of nuclear weapons by the United States.
The strategy suggests that the United States might retaliate with a nuclear strike in response to a nuclear, chemical, or biological attack on the United States, U.S. troops, or friends and allies. “The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force—including through resort to all our options—to the use of WMD,” the strategy warns. Previous administrations have made similar statements at various times despite a long-standing policy not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states unless they attack the United States in alliance with a nuclear-weapon state.
This in combination with the War Powers Act equals a shut the hell up to the anti-Trumps.
Nope. That is absolutely not true. where is the proof of that. You are falling for bull crap.
War powers act purpise
(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
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.