Trump’s Far-Right Supporters Turn on Him Over Syria Strike

[eieio 1,594]

4 minutes ago, ccneat said:

Being against or uneasy about military action is a rational adult feeling. The action came with out deliberation or discussion in congress or the public. It does not label or slot you into a party or a camp.  

What is notable here is as late as last week the White House was using language that affirmed Assad as someone we could work with and we would let the Russians have their way in the region.  This is a serious break from prior Trump rhetoric. ( We cant say policy because we have not seen policy on Syria).  

 

Outside of our politics and issues with Russia/ Iran, There is a broader moral question about the action the International community should be taking now that Assad has gassed his people ( again) after the Russians certified the original stock pile was destroyed.   I was deeply disappointed in  Obama for not taking strident action the first time Assad crossed the "redline"  We cannot tolerate the use of Nerve agents and we cannot let those tools fall into the wrong hands ( ISIS)

 

 

It also shows how worthless the UN is. 

[Transborderwife 4,666]

Just now, eieio said:

It also shows how worthless the UN is. 

Mixed feelings on the UN personally.  But I do not see how it continues to exist 

[yuna628 9,676]

The way I see it is this...

 

There are strict Constitutionalists who consider that a President should not order any military strike without being authorized by Congress to do so on principle alone - because by definition it can be an act of war with severe consequences that should be considered carefully.

 

There are Nationalists/Isolationists that believe America should stay out of the murders of innocents in any country. And that we should turn a blind eye, because it's not our problem. Too bad, so sad. We aren't world police. Genocides, false flags, are all made up blah blah blah.

 

There are those that are extremely leery based on past experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan... and leftover feelings from Vietnam too.

 

Now, I tend to fall in line with the Constitutionalists that believe strikes should be authorized by Congress... and Congress has long been ignorantly stupid to not enforce that fact. But I also acknowledge that a President does have some ability to take action in emergency national interests. Though I can find there is nothing in the national interest here as of yet, as Trump himself pre-election would often blurt out about such entanglements. I could be a lot more supportive of his actions last night with Syria, if of course he could also acknowledge that he is a raging hypocrite (along with the whole of Congress) who were all too seemingly happy when Obama failed to take action at the 'redline' or push Congress to authorize actions in Syria. All those years before not even our EU allies could agree on the subject. And why? Iran? Russia? WW3 potentials? NK getting big ideas? He was pretty explicit that Obama should not do anything about Syria. Trump supporters can spin it and make it seem like he's naïve to the realities of the situation one minute and a raging genius god the next - but neither of those excuses acknowledge that he was totally cool with thousands of Syrians being murdered before. He's also seemingly cool at barring Syrian refugees who are fleeing being murdered and are desperate for a safe haven.

 

Assad has murdered thousands upon thousands of people of all faiths. The UN can no longer even verify the death count so they stopped trying. And terrorists groups inside that country have also murdered groups of people. Lay waste to Syria and we arrive at another Iraq and Afghanistan scenario, except that Syria's allies would also be mighty ready to attack and then there's Russia, who no doubt not only supports Assad's efforts to murder his own people, but provides him the means to do so. Who are we fooling here?

 

What's the answer? Do we and the international community continue to act like cowards in the face of genocide (no matter where it exists) and turn a blind eye, or do we accept the consequences of our actions when we attempt to stop it?

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

You make some great points. Trump said during the campaign, that it was stupid to advertise when you are about to take military action. I agree 100%. 

 

I dont know how you inform  the snake pit known as congress and keep it secret. 

[yuna628 9,676]

6 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

You make some great points. Trump said during the campaign, that it was stupid to advertise when you are about to take military action. I agree 100%. 

 

I dont know how you inform  the snake pit known as congress and keep it secret. 

Here's the thing though, he didn't inform Congress - but he did give the Russians advanced warning we were coming. Something about being courteous or something, which is pretty funny considering what they helped Assad do (heck if we're saying the gas came from that base and the Russians were using that base...). Should we be dumb enough to think that the Russians didn't give Syria a heads up that we were going to pew pew them?

 

How does this bombing change anything? How does it stop him from doing it again, or just choosing a different method? My husband said last night, why does nerve gas get to be the 'redline'? The guy has blown up, shot, maimed, and poisoned his own people for years. Genocide by any method he deems appropriate.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

4 hours ago, Póg mo said:

Good option? In what way exactly? How about finding out exactly what happened first, before just attacking Syria? Honestly, I don't think America is in any position to lecture anyone about killing civilians. 

I don't think any Government should get away with dropping gas ordinance on civilians. We have been 'attacking' Syria for years, this was simply a concentrated attack for a very specific response to that.

 

While America is less than perfect I don't feel so guilty about it that I don't think we should interfere in the Syrian government engaging in gassing their own civilian population.

 

In a perfect world there would be no need for armed conflict, sadly we don’t live in a perfect world. I am scathing in my criticism of Donald Trump but I don't fault him for this response to the Assad regime, it was measured and appropriate.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

1 minute ago, ready4ONE said:

I don't think any Government should get away with dropping gas ordinance on civilians. We have been 'attacking' Syria for years, this was simply a concentrated attack for a very specific response to that.

 

While America is less than perfect I don't feel so guilty about it that I don't think we should interfere in the Syrian government engaging in gassing their own civilian population.

 

In a perfect world there would be no need for armed conflict, sadly we don’t live in a perfect world. I am scathing in my criticism of Donald Trump but I don't fault him for this response to the Assad regime, it was measured and appropriate.

Something just froze over 

[Inikamoze 86]

Measured and appropriate compared to what scale?

He's a social media president, reads a few tweets on the outcry of people and decides I know what I will assist my popularity rating... a good old bombing campaign. Not the first to take that line. Thatcher did it in the early 80’s in the UK when deciding to send troops to the Falklands, helped her win the next election.

 

not saying the world sits back and just watches but there is merit in talking to allies on the course of action. If you don't Intend to remove Assad then what can we expect in the coming days or weeks.

 

Is the nation expected to applaude every "surprise action" that Trump takes? No consultation with Congress. He did say he knows more than the generals during the campaign so maybe we do have to trust him but with all that has gone before him it's with trepidation that anyone should trust this mans judgement.

 

its ok we have Ivanka in the White House ensuring a calming influence on daddy. Which side of president Xi will she sit on during dinner?

Edited April 7, 2017 by Inikamoze

[Transborderwife 4,666]

2 minutes ago, Inikamoze said:

Measured and appropriate compared to what scale?

He's a social media president, reads a few tweets in the outcry of people and decides I k ow wagtail will assist my popularity rating... a good old bombing campaign. Not the first to take that line. Thatcher did it in the early 80’s when deciding to send troops to the Falklands, helped her win the next election.

 

not saying the wirld sits back and just watches but there is merit in talking to allies on the course of action. If you don't Intend to remove Assad then what can we expect in the coming days or weeks.

 

Is the nation expected to applaude every "surprise action" that Trump takes? No consultation with Congress. He did say he knows more than the generals during the campaign so maybe we do have to trust m but with all that has gone before him it's with trepidation that anyone should trust this mans judgement.

 

its ok we have Ivanka in the White House ensuring a calming influence on daddy. Which side of president Xi will she sit on during dinner?

Congress may not have been consulted but I have no doubt that his top generals were 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Just now, Transborderwife said:

Congress may not have been consulted but I have no doubt that his top generals were 

I am pretty sure if we launched a military attack some Generals were involved. 

[yuna628 9,676]

Suppose my own question of how does bombing this change anything has been answered.

Nothing.

We either put up or shut up, otherwise as the days pass we'll realize this strike was an effort of futility.

 

 

[Inikamoze 86]

2 hours ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

I am pretty sure if we launched a military attack some Generals were involved. 

Yes I'm sure of that too, so what? There are reasons that many such actions have gone through some sort of committee within congress. The reasons are pretty obvious I'd say in why you would go through such a process.

[eieio 1,594]

5 hours ago, yuna628 said:

Suppose my own question of how does bombing this change anything has been answered.

Nothing.

We either put up or shut up, otherwise as the days pass we'll realize this strike was an effort of futility.

 

 

So what do you think the US should do?

[OriZ 3,157]

7 hours ago, yuna628 said:

Here's the thing though, he didn't inform Congress - but he did give the Russians advanced warning we were coming. Something about being courteous or something, which is pretty funny considering what they helped Assad do (heck if we're saying the gas came from that base and the Russians were using that base...). Should we be dumb enough to think that the Russians didn't give Syria a heads up that we were going to pew pew them?

 

How does this bombing change anything? How does it stop him from doing it again, or just choosing a different method? My husband said last night, why does nerve gas get to be the 'redline'? The guy has blown up, shot, maimed, and poisoned his own people for years. Genocide by any method he deems appropriate.

The heads up to the Russians was nothing out of the norm in these situations. Hell I wouldn't be surprised if they even told the Syrians directly and not just through the Russians, but the point was not to kill many people here, it was to send a signal. In order to send a signal, it has been fairly common throughout modern military history to provide warnings before bombing a certain strategic area(IDF attacks come to mind where many times it warns ahead of time). I have no issue with this. They knew there were Russians there, they made sure they leave in order to avoid an all out war. Obviously, if things escalate, you escalate your responses accordingly, and provide less warnings. But for an opening/warning shot this was the right move. Now, it will either work, or Assad will go "yeah ok what are they going to do next?" and keep doing what he's doing, and then we'll need to see how the US governmnent reacts. But until then, I think we can agree for now it was a decent decision.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

5 hours ago, yuna628 said:

Suppose my own question of how does bombing this change anything has been answered.

Nothing.

We either put up or shut up, otherwise as the days pass we'll realize this strike was an effort of futility.

 

 

So we are down 40 tomahawks and the Syrians are down a few bags of quikcrete?