during the campaign, Trump bragged that he "could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue, and his supporters would still vote for him"...
so unfortunately, it doesn't matter how many lies, falsehoods, exaggerations or complete reversals in position he does, there is about 35% of the US population where he could be revealed as the Anti-Christ himself and they'd be stupid enough to cheer him on.
Last edited by oldschoolcalgary; 04-08-2017 at 01:10 PM.
New airstrikes targeted a town in Syria that was hit by a chemical attack earlier this week, activists said, less than a day after the US bombarded a Syrian airbase to "send a message" to the Assad regime.
It wasn't immediately clear who conducted the strikes on Khan Sheikhoun, which was hit on Friday and Saturday, though only Russian and Syrian regime aircraft have been bombing that area of rebel-held Idlib province.
Quote:
It wasn't clear where the strikes were launched from, but the Syrian air force resumed flight operations at the base that the US had struck Friday, two pro-regime media outlets and an opposition group said Saturday.
A video on Instagram, posted Saturday by a reporter from the state-run Russia-24 outlet, purports to show a jet rolling down a tarmac at the airbase. The caption reads: "Return to work at Shayrat."
No, they really aren't. There are ramifications for actions like this. This could lead to being forced into a protracted engagement in Syria. It could change the balance of power in the theater. It could embolden one side in the civil war. It could take the focus off the mission against ISIS. It could set a standard that the US can't live up to. It could further harm the relationship between the US and its allies. It could give this egomaniac in the (Winter) White House a taste of the power at his finger tips and embolden him to use those weapons with more regularity. There are all sorts of issues and potential fallout to consider.
Say you're in a bar than this guy is being really loud and obnoxious toward this hot chick. She's rebuffing his advances and he becomes verbally abusive and grabs her by the arm. So you walk up and you slug the guy in the face, because that's what you immediately think is a great solution to the problem. Only problem is that you didn't do any damage to the guy and really haven't changed the situation, except to make it more complex and much more likely to spin out of control and into a larger problem.
Now, should you have just gone up and slugged the guy without considering outcomes and what could possibly happen as result? Or are you just one of those guys who does #### without thinking things through?
Quote:
Syria crossed a line that the world has agreed shouldn't be crossed, and the US punished them for it.
Punished them? That's a laugh. That $100M worth of cruise missiles had little effect. Syria was flying sorties out of that same airbase the very next day.
And who the hell made the United States the world cop? Who said it was their responsibility to dole out "justice" American style? Who gets to send cruise missiles into the sovereign airspace of the US, the next time the US crosses a line, like using drones to conduct an assassination in another sovereign nation?
Quote:
It's a simple black and white, 'law and order' transaction that seems pretty consistent with Trump's general approach (his previous tweets about Obama's handing of Syria notwithstanding).
Except the issue isn't black and white. No issue is black and white. There is still confusion as to who was responsible for the use of the weapons, if it was Syria or Russia.
Quote:
All the discussion about effectiveness, impact on strategy, why don't regular bombs count, this is helping ISIS, this is a false flag, etc. seem to be reaching for a bigger story.
Or it could be people are just asking the questions that should have been answered before 59 cruise missiles were launched toward another sovereign nation. They want to make sure that our guy thinks about the ramifications of his actions before he acts, which has been a life-long challenge for Donald Trump.
And who the hell made the United States the world cop? Who said it was their responsibility to dole out "justice" American style?.
Agree with everything you said except this. Good example with the dyck at the bar.
The planet needs cops. We may find many flaws with "American style justice" but with out a threat of intervention then obviously the planet would be full of those guys you descripted at the bar. it's probably not a cool thing to do is this thread but there is a lot of good in countries like the us dealing out some justice as you put it(not in this case, but in general) because think of what happens if there is a leadership vacuum. Want Russia to be the one controlling that role? Want nobody in that role?
He's served in Syria and hates Trump but agrees with the attack.
Not surprised: the move against Assad isn't something that is necessarily a partisan issue.
however, i think, at least for me, i find it pretty funny that Trump was absolutely hammering Obama NOT to attack Syria only four years ago... that he ran on a policy of "America First" which promoted the idea of isolationism... and he flipped 180 degrees in a span of a week.
Ultimately, the question isn't so much whether its right to attack Assad, but more like, how far will Trump go?
Action in the middle east can lead to a quagmire, as all recent actions have demonstrated. And it cannot be resolved with punchy catch phrases and hollow campaign sloganeering....
I think most support a reminder to Assad that chemical weapons are not to be used. What annoys some on both sides of the aisle is that this was done without consent or even informing the houses. That has ruffled some feathers.
More, I think what people are wondering is "OK but is this going to get us into another war we can't get out of? Because I'm not OK with that".
It also goes to show how Obama handled things. As was noted a few days ago he always said "OK but what happens next?". That didn't trip up a Syria response last time as Obama had both parties on board but as Boehner said there was no way the public was going to approve at all so they backed down. In this case they launched some reminder missiles and the what next was Syria launching airplanes from the same air field later that day. How far is Trump prepared to go if Assad does it again? What next?
Well you had that answer from some this weekend with Haley talking about their only being peace if the Assad regime is removed. If those are the true thoughts they will just create an even bigger power vacuum. Well given the Russian involvement they will simply create another Afghanistan.
I think most support a reminder to Assad that chemical weapons are not to be used. What annoys some on both sides of the aisle is that this was done without consent or even informing the houses. That has ruffled some feathers.
More, I think what people are wondering is "OK but is this going to get us into another war we can't get out of? Because I'm not OK with that".
It also goes to show how Obama handled things. As was noted a few days ago he always said "OK but what happens next?". That didn't trip up a Syria response last time as Obama had both parties on board but as Boehner said there was no way the public was going to approve at all so they backed down. In this case they launched some reminder missiles and the what next was Syria launching airplanes from the same air field later that day. How far is Trump prepared to go if Assad does it again? What next?
Well you had that answer from some this weekend with Haley talking about their only being peace if the Assad regime is removed. If those are the true thoughts they will just create an even bigger power vacuum. Well given the Russian involvement they will simply create another Afghanistan.
Everything points to Trump not having any type of plan around his actions. The press has asked him continuously very basic questions about the situation like: What was the purpose of the strike? Is this a one time warning or is the US pushing for a regime change? What if he does this again? Does the US prepare for a war footing? Is the US was prepared for the impacted the fight against ISIS and relationships with Russia. These were all asked and he had no answers for these. This points to a very short sighted knee-jerk reactionary approach that is not based on any sort of long term strategy otherwise we will just make the situation worse.
So what we know right now is the President is an egotist that thrives praise, we know he launched a completely unilateral strike without considering most of the consequence (trigger happy), it was almost completely ineffective in the goal of preventing the Assad regime from launching another attack and he just moved the Stennis carrier battle group to the Korean peninsula after more saber rattling from North Korea. That makes me very very nervous about the whole situation.
This is aside from the whole discussion on whether the strike was just a distraction from his Russian connections.
for those of you worried about Trump not having a plan in Syria going forward. I think this quote shows how well he understands international issues and how well thought out his policies are.
Quote:
Trump himself has even acknowledged how much information he gains from watching TV. Asked who he consulted with on military matters during the campaign, Trump said this to NBC's Chuck Todd: "Well, I watch the shows. I mean, I really see a lot of great -- you know, when you watch your show, and all of the other shows, and you have the generals, and you have certain people."
__________________
Pass the bacon.
The Following User Says Thank You to DuffMan For This Useful Post:
