How does this work?

In 2011 Obama, along with some of our allies attacked Libya, because Qaddafi was threatening to slaughter many of Libya's citizens, and Congress condemned him for not getting their approval. In 2013, when Assad gassed many more of Syria's citizens, than who were gassed recently, Obama went to Congress for approval to strike, and they refused. Now, Trump and many of those Congressmen have changed their tune.

seems his actions would point to lots of made-up BS about the Prez relationship W/Putin. Was Hillary aware of these lies? Is the integrity of the news media and the Dems being called into question?

Just as he didn't need congress to close Gitmo, as pointed out on numerous occasions by the far Left Code Pink.

And you need a vote of approval from congress. But it's a fine line and the house will give "some" play if the actions justify the cause where they'll let it slide. Usually congress will pretend to have it's butt hurt but nothing really comes of it.It all depends who the players are if congress is gonna makes a big stink over it.

We attacked Qaddafi because they were threatening to cut of the oil they sold to the French and the French punked Obama into protecting "their" oil supply.

After all, 6 deaths from close to 60 missiles in the wee hours of night, early morning. I mean where were they, out at Kubuki's night club dancing the night away. Get real.....

But if you're referring to the AUMF of 9/14/01, it only granted authority for the President to use force against those who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, anyone who harbored or aided them and any "associated forces."  Now that's pretty damn wide authority but Syria does not fall under ANY of those descriptions, which is why Obama sought separate authority which Congress denied.  Trump didn't even ask for such authority and Republicans in Congress, who helped block it for Obama, seem to have gone in the tank.
Also, this...

-- Modified on 4/7/2017 3:18:30 PM

A warning shot form Russian PM.   These people don't mince words.   They have heavy interests in Syria and Iran.   If the clueless Clown and his clueless son in law think they can fire Tomahawks in to Syria, here is the warning.    Get ready for Russia.

just bomb the living shit out of them..

Posted By: mattradd

In 2011 Obama, along with some of our allies attacked Libya, because Qaddafi was threatening to slaughter many of Libya's citizens, and Congress condemned him for not getting their approval. In 2013, when Assad gassed many more of Syria's citizens, than who were gassed recently, Obama went to Congress for approval to strike, and they refused. Now, Trump and many of those Congressmen have changed their tune.

More fake news.

.... US is ready to take more military action against Syria.    If the country has no money to give basic healthcare and decent education to its own people, we have money to go to war with another country that has not attacked us and is no threat to our national security?

That's debatable but probably true.  Regardless, why did Repubs vote it down?  And, despite voting it down, the Repubs complained and screamed bloody murder for years because Obama didn't "fix" Syria...

Russia is nowhere near as powerful as the US and he knows it.

to get their people out of the way.  Putin was told nothing but their military were able to get their people off the base before it was hit.  By the time Putin found out, the raid was over.
Do try checking your facts before posting.

take a shit in Putin's dead mouth.

We can probably find another 10 thousand similar statements since the cold war started just like this.

Fake news this, fake news that, blah, blah, blah...who the fuck does he believe. Fox news??

First correction to the discussion is that Congress never voted on Obama's use of force in Syria in 2013, although refusing to hold a vote on any affirmative measure is the same as voting against it. I think you'd agree with that here.

There isn't a single thing you just said that's true.  I can't stand Trump but:
1) He just put his thumb in Putin's eye and Vlad can't/won't do anything about it.
2) Who told you our Tomahawks are "worthless?"  The Pentagon says 20 warplanes were destroyed.  But I guess they're lying, like you do non-stop.
3) I never said Russia's military wasn't formidable, just not nearly as strong as ours.  But I guess you're our great military mind and we should just bow down to you. They have one carrier, cupcake, and it's out of service.  When they sent it to Syria a couple of months ago it was belching black smoke and had to be accompanied by a tugboat in case it broke down.  Then its arresting gear broke and they lost two aircraft.  So Putin said its mission was complete and it was withdrawn.  Navy guys were laughing at them.
4) One of their planes flew over our ships?  OOOOOOOooooohhhh!  Big fucking deal.  Russian planes and ships (and Chinese) have been buzzing our ships since after WWII.  It's a macho game of theirs and says nothing about their actual capabilities. They do have some nice new planes but so do we.  Just more of them.
As for your final analysis, you sound like you're on crack.  Your opinions are bleats of hot air and worthless.
Now scoot, Taffy!

I've read your reply several times and you're all over the fucking board.  

i will go either way on that deal..

400,000 dead = nothing wrong? I'd buy that it wasn't our problem but nothing wrong?  Really?

But you look like a genius compared to these morons, except of course for the fact that you even talk to LTM&L in the first place.

That is one of the most stupid, incorrect, dishonest, moronic, idiotic post you have ever posted, and as Lying Asinine Fraudulent Fapping Yammerer you have posted some real stupid shit.

As for Trump's action, I have a lot of mixed feelings.  First of all, it's a shocking turn-about from the guy who warned Obama not to attack Syria.  Also the guy who suggested Obama would attack Syria only to better his standings in the polls.  And I fear this was a single act that's not connected to a coherent US policy on Syria.  Not to mention the question of why THIS particular heinous act so moved Trump when his destruction of hospitals with barrel bombs didn't raise a peep.
That said, I do support the action for a number of reasons.  I like that Trump smacked Putin.  I like that it sent a message to the Chinese and North Koreans.  I even like that Trump's seeming unpredictability will make anyone think twice before screwing with us.  I was supportive of Obama's desire to step back but it's an ugly world out there and you can't stay safe by foreclosing the use of force.  
I should also point out that what Trump did may well have been illegal because he did not seek or get Congressional approval for a act of war.  If you read the AUMF that authorized action in Afghanistan and Iraq it has now been stretched beyond recognition to justify our action against ISIS.  But it can't possibly be used to support an attack on Syria.
If all that is too contradictory for you, well, it's a complex situation.  Like I said, I support the action despite the above.

-- Modified on 4/7/2017 8:04:05 PM

Virtually everything you just said is a half-baked opinion based on faulty information.
1) Who said ANYTHING about Assad surrendering? Nice red herring, bozo.
2)  Bullshit.  You must have been reading Russian BDA.  But the real pictures are on TV now.  I guess you can't see them because you don't own a TV, so scurry off to the public library and borrow a computer to take a look.  There are lots of before and after satellite shots showing how badly the air field was busted up.  There is no reason to disbelieve the Pentagon's assertion that 20 war planes were destroyed.  That's a major portion of Syria's fixed-wing air force.
Oh, and the runway was untouched because we didn't try to hit it.  If you knew jack squat about things military, you'd know cruise missiles are NOT designed to go after runways.  As a military commentator just said, "If we had wanted to take the runway out, we know how to do that and would have taken it out."
3) Carriers can be sitting ducks but only under certain circumstances, not under most real-world combat situations.  Carriers only operate as the core of a battle group with many defenses against missile attacks.  If carriers are such a vulnerable weapon, then why are the Chinese moving ahead as fast as they can to build a serious carrier force?  They are already better at it than the Russians.  How is it you "know" the Iranians could take out one of our carriers?  Please stop posing as a military expert. You are very weak on facts on so many things but it shows even more prominently when you pontificate about things military.
4) There was ONE incident where a Russian plane temporarily disabled a destroyer.  If you think that proves that over all the Russians have better technology than we do only shows what an idiot you are.  Of course, the Russians have some good technology but their limping economy can't support the kind of military we have.  Here's a list of the world's largest military budgets.  Even if there's wasteful spending in ours, it tells a story totally at odds with your inane vaporings.
Calm down.  You're frothing your panties. Please don't fudge them.

So now you believe Russia/putin. Obviously you, in addition to obama, are one of putin’s puppets and you are clearly his head salad tosser.  

The Pentagon says only one cruise missile went astray.  And, as I've already said, the runways were NOT the target.  Riddle me this, Taffy, what good are runways if you've got no war planes left to use them?
Tell us, do you have some sort of degenerative brain disease?
Please, don't let us confuse me with the facts.

Satan must be practicing his slap shot in hell.

It means you have actually put some thought into this instead of simply buying into what the talking heads from both sides of the aisle are telling you to think.

And prove what a pussy you are.  Oh, wait! You do that every day! LMAO!
Gawd, you're weak.

You have a chance to separate yourself from the idiocy that Taffy has displayed in this thread and provide a mea culpa after you have seen the evidence that both Jake and I have now linked about the attack.

I'm sure the Russians actually made sure after they were notified that they had personnel very close by, just so they could observe 1st hand the effectiveness and hopefully collect a potentially dud missile. As previously stated, the goal was not to crater the runways as tomahawks aren't armed for such a task. I agree though the goal of the attack was more political message than military. Also, in case it comes up, a conventional tomahawk warhead is not a very safe or effective way to destroy sarin.

Try reading the Pentagon press release? The airfields were NOT a target. Aircraft hangers, air defense, radar, fuel and ammo bunkers etc were the targets. Airstrips can be easily repaired, planes moved to other fields, these were hardened, tomahawks arent designed to take out runways are just a few of the reasons why they weren't targeted. Jake was/is right on this.  

pictures?

And now you are on record that the attack "failed bigly" when numerous military analysts  on CNN and MSNBC have said it was a success. lol

Obama threatened Assad and went to Congress for approval.  Congress wouldn't vote to approve, so, what did everyone expect/want him to do?!  BTW, most people think President needs approval from Congress.  Witness, today, Trump is beginning to ask Congress for approval

Kudos for your admissions. You're now in the correct ballpark, discussing motives and public opinion. Neither Obama or Trump legally needed Congressional approval. Both of their plays, no action by the former and action by the latter were political moves. You are entitled to your opinion about both. I only requested you get your facts correct, which brings us back to your last point once more. Better not to take action? American lives not lost? Maybe, depended on the action of course. But over 400,000 Syrian lives lost and millions of Syrian refugees displaced = NOTHING as you claimed? Hardly.

and since you are not a blind partisan, maybe you can provide some insight here.

Trump admits, though gives a lame excuse why it wasn't a bigly success!

Got a link to all those accolades from the cable networks. I was not watching, and very little, if anything of what I've read supports what you say the cable news reported. The fact that they flew bombing runs out of that airfield within 24 hours of us hitting it tells me that it was a success, but not bigly. Being in the Vietnam war, I saw what knocking out an airstrip looks like. It looks a lot like what the Japanese did to us at Pearl Harbor, when most of our aircraft were caught on the ground. Wasn't it Trump who said it was stupid to warn our enemies when we're coming?

I've dealt w/thousands of people over the years.  You simply strand out as the most illogical crackpot - by FAR - that I've ever run into.  It's IMPOSSIUBLE to have even a semi-intelligent conversation with you!

I can only conclude that it has all been due to extreme luck on your part. Or maybe you're surrounded by yes-men. I know you're surrounded by yes-men since you can't begin to acknowledge even your errors here, that Republicans voted down Obama's request. I repeat. There NEVER was a vote and the Democrats could have held one anytime they wished because they controlled the Senate.