World Leaders Praise U.S. Strike on Syria

[carpro]

World Leaders Praise U.S. Strike on Syria, ‘Proportionate, Appropriate’

World Leaders Praise U.S. Strike on Syria, ‘Proportionate, Appropriate’

President Trump’s decision to launch an airstrike against a Syrian airbase thought to be the source of Tuesday’s chemical weapons attack drew widespread approval from European leaders, who deemed the assault proportionate and justified.
On Thursday, the United States launched 59 Tomahawk missiles from two aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean Sea in response to the massacre of more than 80 civilians, including 28 children, allegedly through the illegal use of deadly sarin gas bombs. The target was al-Shayrat military airfield near Homs, believed to be the provenance of Tuesday’s nerve gas attack.

British Prime Minister Theresa May said the action was an “appropriate response” to the “barbaric” chemical weapons attack launched by the Syrian regime.

UK Defense Secretary Michael Fallon noted that the strike was a United States operation, “but let me emphasize again we fully support it.”

“This strike was very limited to one airfield, it was entirely appropriate, it’s designed to deter the regime from carrying out further chemical weapons attacks,” he said.

Similar remarks came from the European continent.

 

[HankD]

World Leaders Praise U.S. Strike on Syria, ‘Proportionate, Appropriate’

World Leaders Praise U.S. Strike on Syria, ‘Proportionate, Appropriate’

President Trump’s decision to launch an airstrike against a Syrian airbase thought to be the source of Tuesday’s chemical weapons attack drew widespread approval from European leaders, who deemed the assault proportionate and justified.
On Thursday, the United States launched 59 Tomahawk missiles from two aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean Sea in response to the massacre of more than 80 civilians, including 28 children, allegedly through the illegal use of deadly sarin gas bombs. The target was al-Shayrat military airfield near Homs, believed to be the provenance of Tuesday’s nerve gas attack.

British Prime Minister Theresa May said the action was an “appropriate response” to the “barbaric” chemical weapons attack launched by the Syrian regime.

UK Defense Secretary Michael Fallon noted that the strike was a United States operation, “but let me emphasize again we fully support it.”

“This strike was very limited to one airfield, it was entirely appropriate, it’s designed to deter the regime from carrying out further chemical weapons attacks,” he said.

Similar remarks came from the European continent.

The international response was probably one of relief that finally the US has proven it is not afraid of the Assad/Putin alliance.

Also it does kind of put a damper on the supposed Trump/Putin "bromance".

HankD

 

[carpro]

Also it does kind of put a damper on the supposed Trump/Putin "bromance".

HankD

That won't slow down the left and the Trump haters at all. The truth never does.

 

[HankD]

That won't slow down the left and the Trump haters at all. The truth never does.

Unfortunately.

HankD

 

[Dr. Bob]

Think the majority who voted for Trump wanted someone who would "act" and not "whine" (as did previous 8 year tenant of the White House). But worried of "extreme" action. This limited response settles our hearts a bit.

Armchair quarterbacks who hate Trump will gather to damn his every breath, so that is not unexpected

 

[rsr]

Just curious. By what authority is the president empowered to approve such a mission?

 

[MennoSota]

Just curious. By what authority is the president empowered to approve such a mission?

For decades the President has acted as Commander-in-Chief to execute a police action. In this way he is not breaking the Constitution.

 

[carpro]

Just curious. By what authority is the president empowered to approve such a mission?

I would guess by the same authority by which Obama already had US ground forces inside Syria.

 

[asterisktom]

World Leaders Praise U.S. Strike on Syria, ‘Proportionate, Appropriate’

World Leaders Praise U.S. Strike on Syria, ‘Proportionate, Appropriate’

President Trump’s decision to launch an airstrike against a Syrian airbase thought to be the source of Tuesday’s chemical weapons attack drew widespread approval from European leaders, who deemed the assault proportionate and justified.
On Thursday, the United States launched 59 Tomahawk missiles from two aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean Sea in response to the massacre of more than 80 civilians, including 28 children, allegedly through the illegal use of deadly sarin gas bombs. The target was al-Shayrat military airfield near Homs, believed to be the provenance of Tuesday’s nerve gas attack.

British Prime Minister Theresa May said the action was an “appropriate response” to the “barbaric” chemical weapons attack launched by the Syrian regime.

UK Defense Secretary Michael Fallon noted that the strike was a United States operation, “but let me emphasize again we fully support it.”

“This strike was very limited to one airfield, it was entirely appropriate, it’s designed to deter the regime from carrying out further chemical weapons attacks,” he said.

Similar remarks came from the European continent.

I am not surprised that world leaders follow suit and support the US's missile strikes at Homs. But it doesn't seem like a just assessment is made here, either by them or many here on this board. It is sad to me how many Christians are OK with our country's bellicose actions here. I don't know. Maybe it is an outgrowth of their It's-all-going-to-burn-anyway-eschatology.

The point is that Assad's guilt is anything but clear. Likewise for Russia's part. For those of you who might be interested in an alternate view, please consider this from Russia Today:

"Despite no investigation into the incident, which Russia and Syria said coincided with the bombing of a rebel warehouse storing munitions and toxic substances allegedly used in the production of shells used in Iraq and in some previous gas attacks in Syria, the US and its western allies have jumped to conclusions that Syrian President Bashar Assad bears responsibility for “chemical attack.”"
US launches probe into whether Russia took part in ‘chemical attack’ in Syria – AP

Yes, Russia and Putin have their faults, but they are not as guilty - and we are not as guiltless - as many of you seem to think.

I had a low opinion of Trump (although I considered him to be better than Hillary) but he is getting worse and worse. Our country is just in the business of wars for profit. And we are quite willing to resurrect the McCarthy Era playbook to keep our military industry going.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Just curious. By what authority is the president empowered to approve such a mission?

The War Powers Resolution, enacted in 1973, long after American troops began fighting in Vietnam, required the president to consult with Congress before sending U.S. armed forces into combat unless there already had been a declaration of war. The troops could not stay more than 90 days unless lawmakers backed the decision.

The law also gave the president "leeway to respond to attacks or other emergencies," according to the Council on Foreign Relations.

It is that leeway that presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama and now Trump have used.
*Bush after 9.11 to attack al-Qaida, although later given congressional approval
*Obama to fight Islamic State (ISIS) and still ongoing today
*Trump to continue military action in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria

 

[HankD]

This action will no doubt give the Trump haters a mouth full of gristle to chew on for quite a while.

HankD

 

[pinoybaptist]

President Trump is being played by his own people who knows his weakest point....ego.
Think about it.
With the airstrip immobilized and the planes destroyed, Assad is rendered weaker in resisting the rebels, so-called, which are controlled and manipulated by ISIS, which by the way, hates the US and wants nothing better than to be established either directly or through a puppet government.
If Assad is dethroned, who assumes the throne ?
ISIS, of course.
Then, what ?
On the other hand, we bombed Assad's country, Syria's property, and then what ?
We shake the dust off, shake his hand, and say, "okay, buddy, now lets get back to fighting ISIS, just don't be a naughty boy and use gas next time, got it ?".
ISIS is the enemy, right now, and Assad, is a friend, because, 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend', remember ?
Besides, one of his own promises which appealed to Americans is that he will keep America's nose from poking itself where it doesn't belong.
Since when have we been the world's treaty enforcer ?
My wife and I were die hard Trump supporters, and still are, I guess.
But we voted for a president, not an idol.

 

[HankD]

President Trump is being played by his own people who knows his weakest point....ego.
Think about it.
With the airstrip immobilized and the planes destroyed, Assad is rendered weaker in resisting the rebels, so-called, which are controlled and manipulated by ISIS, which by the way, hates the US and wants nothing better than to be established either directly or through a puppet government.
If Assad is dethroned, who assumes the throne ?
ISIS, of course.
Then, what ?
On the other hand, we bombed Assad's country, Syria's property, and then what ?
We shake the dust off, shake his hand, and say, "okay, buddy, now lets get back to fighting ISIS, just don't be a naughty boy and use gas next time, got it ?".
ISIS is the enemy, right now, and Assad, is a friend, because, 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend', remember ?
Besides, one of his own promises which appealed to Americans is that he will keep America's nose from poking itself where it doesn't belong.
Since when have we been the world's treaty enforcer ?
My wife and I were die hard Trump supporters, and still are, I guess.
But we voted for a president, not an idol.

I too became emotional when I saw the raw video of the gas victims especially the babies and I am getting so as I write this.

But then I think of what we did in Nagasaki and Hiroshima including the victims of radiation poisoning for decades to follow - 200-300,000 deaths with probably as many maimed and sick.

But it ended the war.

War is hell indeed.

HankD

 

[Crabtownboy]

Follow
Donald J. Trump

✔@realDonaldTrump
AGAIN, TUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA - IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!

9:20 AM - 5 Sep 2013

• https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?in_reply_to=375609403376144384
  
• 
  77,47077,470 Retweets
  
• 
  54,88554,885 likes

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump
Follow
Donald J. Trump

✔@realDonaldTrump
President Obama, do not attack Syria. There is no upside and tremendous downside. Save your "powder" for another (and more important) day!

9:21 AM - 7 Sep 2013

• https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?in_reply_to=376334423069032448
  
• 
  7,2597,259 Retweets
  
• 
  3,9023,902 likes

 

[rsr]

For decades the President has acted as Commander-in-Chief to execute a police action. In this way he is not breaking the Constitution.

Which is why Congress passed the War Powers Resolution — to limit the powers of the chief executive.

 

[HankD]

Besides using the missile attack as a deterrent to Syrian atrocities, IMO president Trump made an attempt to reposition America as an international power to be reckoned with after the Obama 8 year drainage of US respect.

HankD

 

[rsr]

The law also gave the president "leeway to respond to attacks or other emergencies," according to the Council on Foreign Relations.

Actually, the resolution says that "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."

Not just any emergency.

 

[rsr]

I would guess by the same authority by which Obama already had US ground forces inside Syria.

No. Bush, Obama (and now Trump) have relied upon the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which originally applied to al Qaeda, to pursue the "war on terror" to far-flung fields. But even that elastic reading is strained to cover an action that has nothing to do with the "war on terror." Trump will probably have to rationalize his decision, just as Obama did in Libya, with an explanation that the action wasn't really war because it wasn't expected to be a continuing situation.

 

[Yeshua1]

Just curious. By what authority is the president empowered to approve such a mission?

Per Congress resolutions, the president can launch an attack if under "national interests/security", has to notify Congress within 3 days of action, and if will be over 30 idays involved, Congress needs to approve!

 

[Yeshua1]

I am not surprised that world leaders follow suit and support the US's missile strikes at Homs. But it doesn't seem like a just assessment is made here, either by them or many here on this board. It is sad to me how many Christians are OK with our country's bellicose actions here. I don't know. Maybe it is an outgrowth of their It's-all-going-to-burn-anyway-eschatology.

The point is that Assad's guilt is anything but clear. Likewise for Russia's part. For those of you who might be interested in an alternate view, please consider this from Russia Today:

"Despite no investigation into the incident, which Russia and Syria said coincided with the bombing of a rebel warehouse storing munitions and toxic substances allegedly used in the production of shells used in Iraq and in some previous gas attacks in Syria, the US and its western allies have jumped to conclusions that Syrian President Bashar Assad bears responsibility for “chemical attack.”"
US launches probe into whether Russia took part in ‘chemical attack’ in Syria – AP

Yes, Russia and Putin have their faults, but they are not as guilty - and we are not as guiltless - as many of you seem to think.

I had a low opinion of Trump (although I considered him to be better than Hillary) but he is getting worse and worse. Our country is just in the business of wars for profit. And we are quite willing to resurrect the McCarthy Era playbook to keep our military industry going.

Thankfully, you were not president when Hilter was on the warpath!