-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Syria:
@Catogrande said in Syria:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Syria:
Well he cant do worse than a Baskin Robbins ice cream server like Obama. What makes a fast food worker qualified to run foreign policy?
One News still refers to him as a reality TV star and not the President. It is just the usual tactics to delegitimize him.
Not entirely a good comparison. Comparing Obama's temporary job when he was little more than a kid to Trump's situation where he seemingly takes off one hat and then puts an entirely different one on. Obama already had a political career before running for president.
However I do agree that the continued lampooning of Trump has become a bit tired now. He's got the job, let him get on with it and he will either succeed or fail - or more likely be somewhere in between.
It is fucking ludicrous. If Obama had bombed a Syrian airstrip.... would his job at Baskin Robbins be mentioned? The left have just collectively lost its shit.
Well as I said earlier
"However I do agree that the continued lampooning of Trump has become a bit tired now. He's got the job, let him get on with it and he will either succeed or fail - or more likely be somewhere in between."
-
Stick to that thought, Donald.
Are people serious at upvoting this? Do people genuinely think this is a bad idea? Trump has bombed Syria because they used chemical weapons on their own people. The goal of such a bombing is to prevent chemical weapons becoming normalised. Syria doesn't want to be bombed by the USA so will stop using chemical weapons. This is a small targeted attack with a clear objective. It is nothing like "regime change" or "nation building". I would expect any other recent US president to act in the same way.
Do people doubt the need to prevent chemical weapons from being used? I'm perplexed.
-
@Catogrande said in Syria:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Syria:
@Catogrande said in Syria:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Syria:
Well he cant do worse than a Baskin Robbins ice cream server like Obama. What makes a fast food worker qualified to run foreign policy?
One News still refers to him as a reality TV star and not the President. It is just the usual tactics to delegitimize him.
Not entirely a good comparison. Comparing Obama's temporary job when he was little more than a kid to Trump's situation where he seemingly takes off one hat and then puts an entirely different one on. Obama already had a political career before running for president.
However I do agree that the continued lampooning of Trump has become a bit tired now. He's got the job, let him get on with it and he will either succeed or fail - or more likely be somewhere in between.
It is fucking ludicrous. If Obama had bombed a Syrian airstrip.... would his job at Baskin Robbins be mentioned? The left have just collectively lost its shit.
Well as I said earlier
"However I do agree that the continued lampooning of Trump has become a bit tired now. He's got the job, let him get on with it and he will either succeed or fail - or more likely be somewhere in between."
I know... I was replying to you, not talking about you.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel Economic sanctions, trade blockades, seizure of assets.
You do realise that they already do these things right? And it doesn't matter because Russia gives Syria money? Assad doesn't care about those things - he does care about his airfields being bombed.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback Yeah I get that but I wasn't sure if you were agreeing with what I had said or not. I chose the latter as being more likely.
-
In case anyone doesn't realise, the reason for proscriptions on chemical weapons is because they kill people horribly and leave the infrastructure in tact. If you want to blow up a neighbourhood you have to drop a bomb with goes boom and destroys local infrastructure. Chemical weapons only kill living things. They are just too easy and too deadly. There are not many international standards - it can be a barbaric world. Let's not lose the standards we do have.
-
Stick to that thought, Donald.
Are people serious at upvoting this? Do people genuinely think this is a bad idea? Trump has bombed Syria because they used chemical weapons on their own people. The goal of such a bombing is to prevent chemical weapons becoming normalised. Syria doesn't want to be bombed by the USA so will stop using chemical weapons. This is a small targeted attack with a clear objective. It is nothing like "regime change" or "nation building". I would expect any other recent US president to act in the same way.
Do people doubt the need to prevent chemical weapons from being used? I'm perplexed.
I upvoted it. Because it's ironic that 4 years ago when he had no access to any intelligence other than cable TV he thought intervention was a bad idea but now that he's in the driving seat with all that advice and infohe's come to the same place as Obama.
Presidenting turns out to be hard. Who knew.
I don't think anybody said the bombing was a bad idea, although plenty of us are hoping his plan for what happens next is better than Obama's or GWB's were.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Syria:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Syria:
Well he cant do worse than a Baskin Robbins ice cream server like Obama. What makes a fast food worker qualified to run foreign policy?
Couple of decades as a lawyer. Four years as a senator. Eight as President.
Against Trump's wealth of political experience in.... uh...
Business isn't politics, before you start.
You are right.. business is far better experience than being a lawyer.
4 years as a senator? Big woopdy fucking doo.Couple of decades as a civil rights lawyer vs building skyscrapers. Doesn't mean either of them is more qualified than the other to fix the Syrian mess. Unless of course being a civil rights lawyer makes you an expert on Middle Eastern politics, specifically the conflict in Syria.
-
There is also the contention by some, (I have no opinion), that the rebels have more incentive to gas Syrian citizens than Assad. That they did it - not Assad.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/
I heard Rex Tillerson announce the Syrian people will get to choose if they want Assad or not. Two days after this, Assad gases his own people???? On the other hand, perhaps he is just a maniac who thought no one would take action against him.
Assad always says the same thing when shit like this happens, i.e. "What do I have to gain from doing this."
Could be in his dastardly plan to put people in two minds about who did it. Do the rebels even have access to these kinds of chemical weapons?
-
Stick to that thought, Donald.
Are people serious at upvoting this? Do people genuinely think this is a bad idea? Trump has bombed Syria because they used chemical weapons on their own people. The goal of such a bombing is to prevent chemical weapons becoming normalised. Syria doesn't want to be bombed by the USA so will stop using chemical weapons. This is a small targeted attack with a clear objective. It is nothing like "regime change" or "nation building". I would expect any other recent US president to act in the same way.
Do people doubt the need to prevent chemical weapons from being used? I'm perplexed.
I upvoted it. Because it's ironic that 4 years ago when he had no access to any intelligence other than cable TV he thought intervention was a bad idea but now that he's in the driving seat with all that advice and infohe's come to the same place as Obama.
Presidenting turns out to be hard. Who knew.
I don't think anybody said the bombing was a bad idea, although plenty of us are hoping his plan for what happens next is better than Obama's or GWB's were.
He hasnt come to the same place as Obama, his path is very different. For good or ill.
-
Please stay on topic y'all.
Can I please ask absolutely genuine question(s):
- who are the bad guys?
- Who are the less bad guys?
- Who are the victims and what would be the best outcome for the stabilty of the region and the world?
Am I correct in thinking that:
a. Assad is an evil dictator that oppresses his people.
b. The rebels are essentially the Syrian version of the Taliban or ISIS and are likely to be worse than Assad if victorious
c. Leaving Assad in power but curbing the worst of his oppression is the least worst outcome
??Or have I missed the point here entirely?
-
Stick to that thought, Donald.
Are people serious at upvoting this? Do people genuinely think this is a bad idea? Trump has bombed Syria because they used chemical weapons on their own people. The goal of such a bombing is to prevent chemical weapons becoming normalised. Syria doesn't want to be bombed by the USA so will stop using chemical weapons. This is a small targeted attack with a clear objective. It is nothing like "regime change" or "nation building". I would expect any other recent US president to act in the same way.
Do people doubt the need to prevent chemical weapons from being used? I'm perplexed.
I upvoted it. Because it's ironic that 4 years ago when he had no access to any intelligence other than cable TV he thought intervention was a bad idea but now that he's in the driving seat with all that advice and infohe's come to the same place as Obama.
Presidenting turns out to be hard. Who knew.
I don't think anybody said the bombing was a bad idea, although plenty of us are hoping his plan for what happens next is better than Obama's or GWB's were.
Well you all put a massive more impetus on tweets than I ever will. Obama's planned actions in Syria were far broader, as I understand. I don't think it is the same place at all - the devil is in the details.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel These chemical weapons are dispersed from the air and only the Syrian regime (Assad) and Russians have planes. The spin the Russians put on it was that Syrian bombs hit rebel chemical supplies but that contradicts what the locals said.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Syria:
Stick to that thought, Donald.
Are people serious at upvoting this? Do people genuinely think this is a bad idea? Trump has bombed Syria because they used chemical weapons on their own people. The goal of such a bombing is to prevent chemical weapons becoming normalised. Syria doesn't want to be bombed by the USA so will stop using chemical weapons. This is a small targeted attack with a clear objective. It is nothing like "regime change" or "nation building". I would expect any other recent US president to act in the same way.
Do people doubt the need to prevent chemical weapons from being used? I'm perplexed.
I upvoted it. Because it's ironic that 4 years ago when he had no access to any intelligence other than cable TV he thought intervention was a bad idea but now that he's in the driving seat with all that advice and infohe's come to the same place as Obama.
Presidenting turns out to be hard. Who knew.
I don't think anybody said the bombing was a bad idea, although plenty of us are hoping his plan for what happens next is better than Obama's or GWB's were.
He hasnt come to the same place as Obama, his path is very different. For good or ill.
No argument from me about the path being different, but the destination has turned out to be the same IMO: airstrikes. Obama's were late and not particularly effective, but still airstrikes. Trump's are timely with unknown effectiveness. But still airstrikes. I guess we'll find out how their paths diverge again from here, won't we?
One interesting question is the legal basis for Trump's response. Is he going to seek Congressional approval now? They're saying there's no change in policy but isn't an airstrike on a foreign power an act of war?
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel These chemical weapons are dispersed from the air and only the Syrian regime (Assad) and Russians have planes. The spin the Russians put on it was that Syrian bombs hit rebel chemical supplies but that contradicts what the locals said.
Thought as much. Saw an interview with Assad a while ago after some other atrocity had been committed. Again he was playing the victim and asking why he would do such a thing to his own people.
What a mess.
-
Can I please ask absolutely genuine question(s):
who are the bad guys?
Who are the less bad guys?
Who are the victims and what would be the best outcome for the stabilty of the region and the world?ISIS.
Assad's regime.
Civilians. That the majority of people get to determine their own fate and everyone else stops meddling in their affairs.@booboo I'm inclined to agree with you. It's with noting that before the Arab Spring, Syria was fairly stable even if Assad's family were a pack of shunts in terms of dictatorship. But then uprisings and Daesh happened.
Syria had a major drought and Assad's regime didn't give a shit about the starving peasants.
Syria