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

[yuna628 9,676]

5 minutes ago, ccneat said:

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

Pretty much.

[eieio 1,594]

Video says a lot. Show Trump is on the right path....and shows how bad CNN tries to portray Trump. I am shocked they allowed this to air. You could tell the bimbo wanted to end the interview as soon as she realized this guy was thanking Trump.

[Ban Hammer 13,343]

[Transborderwife 4,666]

9 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

Ughhhhhhhh 

[yuna628 9,676]

17 hours ago, eieio said:

So what do you think the US should do?

You tell me. Are you a Constitutionalist, an isolationist, or a Putin-solves-everythingist?

16 hours ago, OriZ said:

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.

And its clear Assad is going to keep on doing what he's doing. I mean seriously, bombing that does nothing. What message did we send? We gave some very frightened people hope that we're actually going to help them, but are we? Do we want to get into another war? The runways are usable and he flew planes out of it within 12hrs of being hit. It's kind of like TPing a guy's house because he bullied your friends. So the next day he comes and firebombs your house and beats your friends to a pulp, just to prove that he can. The guy literally does not care. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/04/07/assad-taunting-trump-mounts-new-attacks-on-the-town-he-gassed.html I feel for the man in the video above. These people are desperate and want help. Help no one else will give them.

[eieio 1,594]

37 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

You tell me. Are you a Constitutionalist, an isolationist, or a Putin-solves-everythingist?

And its clear Assad is going to keep on doing what he's doing. I mean seriously, bombing that does nothing. What message did we send? We gave some very frightened people hope that we're actually going to help them, but are we? Do we want to get into another war? The runways are usable and he flew planes out of it within 12hrs of being hit. It's kind of like TPing a guy's house because he bullied your friends. So the next day he comes and firebombs your house and beats your friends to a pulp, just to prove that he can. The guy literally does not care. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/04/07/assad-taunting-trump-mounts-new-attacks-on-the-town-he-gassed.html I feel for the man in the video above. These people are desperate and want help. Help no one else will give them.

I don't have the answer. However, it seems to me you will complain no matter what happens. You were complaining that Trump would not do anything. Now you are complaining that he did not do enough.  Do you want us to kill Assad? Attack Russia? Iran?  

[OriZ 3,157]

4 hours ago, yuna628 said:

You tell me. Are you a Constitutionalist, an isolationist, or a Putin-solves-everythingist?

And its clear Assad is going to keep on doing what he's doing. I mean seriously, bombing that does nothing. What message did we send? We gave some very frightened people hope that we're actually going to help them, but are we? Do we want to get into another war? The runways are usable and he flew planes out of it within 12hrs of being hit. It's kind of like TPing a guy's house because he bullied your friends. So the next day he comes and firebombs your house and beats your friends to a pulp, just to prove that he can. The guy literally does not care. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/04/07/assad-taunting-trump-mounts-new-attacks-on-the-town-he-gassed.html I feel for the man in the video above. These people are desperate and want help. Help no one else will give them.

As I said we will deal with later, later. If he continues to do what he's doing and the US doesn't do anything then we can either criticize or applaud depending on what you believe. But until then, we have to take it for what it is I think: A pretty successful first move in a long chess game. The way I see it the natural progression would be to escalate the response each time, and to avoid at all, or for as long as possible an outcome of a full out war(in hopes that the current move or the future escalation would be enough of a deterrent). You don't start by saying "look at me I'm crazy", but you do start by sending a msg that says "I'm just getting started, don't make me go crazy". I don't think starting out with a more severe move would have been wise. 

[bcking 3,157]

1 hour ago, OriZ said:

But until then, we have to take it for what it is I think: A pretty successful first move in a long chess game. The way I see it the natural progression would be to escalate the response each time, and to avoid at all, or for as long as possible an outcome of a full out war(in hopes that the current move or the future escalation would be enough of a deterrent). You don't start by saying "look at me I'm crazy", but you do start by sending a msg that says "I'm just getting started, don't make me go crazy". I don't think starting out with a more severe move would have been wise. 

How do you define "successful" in this case?

 

I'm with Yuna on this. If you think striking Syria is the right way to go (which is a different debate), how does hitting a single airstrip with 40 tomahawk missiles, and then having the airstrip restart functioning within a DAY of the strike indicate a "successful first move"? 

 

As I said striking Syria may or may not be the right decision, but if it is we didn't exactly show any "military might" with that move. Wasted a lot of missiles on something that just reopened a few hours later.

[OriZ 3,157]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

How do you define "successful" in this case?

 

I'm with Yuna on this. If you think striking Syria is the right way to go (which is a different debate), how does hitting a single airstrip with 40 tomahawk missiles, and then having the airstrip restart functioning within a DAY of the strike indicate a "successful first move"? 

 

As I said striking Syria may or may not be the right decision, but if it is we didn't exactly show any "military might" with that move. Wasted a lot of missiles on something that just reopened a few hours later.

I actually didn't prior to this strike nor do I now have the exact recipe for what should be done in Syria. Quite honestly, like most people, I'm torn between the need to help the people there and the reluctance to get into another war. I had no idea what they were going to do until they did this and when I heard about it I thought it was a good idea and still do. It's about strategy at this point, not about killing people. It's about sending messages and I think this was a good way to start. It let everybody know that the US isn't going to sit idle anymore. Now, whether in the end it does or doesn't we don't know yet and we will judge it at the time.

[bcking 3,157]

3 minutes ago, OriZ said:

I actually didn't prior to this strike nor do I now have the exact recipe for what should be done in Syria. Quite honestly, like most people, I'm torn between the need to help the people there and the reluctance to get into another war. I had no idea what they were going to do until they did this and when I heard about it I thought it was a good idea and still do. It's about strategy at this point, not about killing people. It's about sending messages and I think this was a good way to start. It let everybody know that the US isn't going to sit idle anymore. Now, whether in the end it does or doesn't we don't know yet and we will judge it at the time.

Ya I guess I disagree. I don't think it really sends any message. We attacked a single airbase, and we weren't very effective at it. That doesn't mean we are necessarily willing to continue hostilities. It wasn't a declaration of war, it was a unilateral single attack made by our President. It doesn't send a message that we will do it again. It may just as likely be a one off. 

 

We can already see how little impact it has made - The planes that took off from that very same airstrip were used to attack the same rebel controlled town within a day of the missile strikes. If we are really truly serious, then we need to respond to that as well, which we haven't yet.

 

EDIT: I do agree though that I also don't know the best answer for Syria. I just think this isn't getting us any closer unless we follow it up and let the chips fall where they may.

Edited April 9, 2017 by bcking

[OriZ 3,157]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

Ya I guess I disagree. I don't think it really sends any message. We attacked a single airbase, and we weren't very effective at it. That doesn't mean we are necessarily willing to continue hostilities. It wasn't a declaration of war, it was a unilateral single attack made by our President. It doesn't send a message that we will do it again. It may just as likely be a one off. 

 

We can already see how little impact it has made - The planes that took off from that very same airstrip were used to attack the same rebel controlled town within a day of the missile strikes. If we are really truly serious, then we need to respond to that as well, which we haven't yet.

 

EDIT: I do agree though that I also don't know the best answer for Syria. I just think this isn't getting us any closer unless we follow it up and let the chips fall where they may.

They didn't attack the air base because Assad is attacking people nor was anybody delusional enough to think that now he won't. The whole thing was about the chemical weapons. I agree that with or without chemical weapons people are still dying, but that's not what this was about. Not before with Obama, and not in the last two months with Trump. Maybe in the US people are not used to these type of actions because usually it's either war or nothing, but it's actually something the IDF does quite often and it usually works. For example, if rockets come in from Gaza usually they will attack a weapons factory or a(often empty) Hamas post or something. It sends a message, and if it doesn't stop it usually escalates. So from my experience the message does work as usually it doesn't lead to war, however as we've seen every several years both sides get too stubborn and then it does. But usually it's just kind of like a "hey, don't mess with us" without attempting to kill anybody right off the bat. To me this is very similar. Again, I'm not saying there will or will not be follow through and if there isn't we can certainly criticize it then, but for now I see it as what may seem to be a good first move.

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, OriZ said:

They didn't attack the air base because Assad is attacking people nor was anybody delusional enough to think that now he won't. The whole thing was about the chemical weapons. I agree that with or without chemical weapons people are still dying, but that's not what this was about. Not before with Obama, and not in the last two months with Trump. Maybe in the US people are not used to these type of actions because usually it's either war or nothing, but it's actually something the IDF does quite often and it usually works. For example, if rockets come in from Gaza usually they will attack a weapons factory or a(often empty) Hamas post or something. It sends a message, and if it doesn't stop it usually escalates. So from my experience the message does work as usually it doesn't lead to war, however as we've seen every several years both sides get too stubborn and then it does. But usually it's just kind of like a "hey, don't mess with us" without attempting to kill anybody right off the bat. To me this is very similar. Again, I'm not saying there will or will not be follow through and if there isn't we can certainly criticize it then, but for now I see it as what may seem to be a good first move.

I agree with you about the chemical weapons thing. It is a convenient excuse. The people are still dead. I doubt their family members care whether they were "conventionally bombed" or bombed with gas. 

 

The convenience will be that they have attacked this airfield and perhaps we won't see chemical weapons again for awhile. That will be seen as a "success", however they continue to bomb with impunity and continue to kill countless civilians. As I said before, the very airstrip we attacked is already active again sending fighters to the very same location. 

 

Do we expect that this single strike is going to make Assad completely stop? That is just ridiculous of course it won't. He has already sent off fighters for more bombings and we haven't responded to those so the action has already failed.

[OriZ 3,157]

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

I agree with you about the chemical weapons thing. It is a convenient excuse. The people are still dead. I doubt their family members care whether they were "conventionally bombed" or bombed with gas. 

 

The convenience will be that they have attacked this airfield and perhaps we won't see chemical weapons again for awhile. That will be seen as a "success", however they continue to bomb with impunity and continue to kill countless civilians. As I said before, the very airstrip we attacked is already active again sending fighters to the very same location. 

 

Do we expect that this single strike is going to make Assad completely stop? That is just ridiculous of course it won't. He has already sent off fighters for more bombings and we haven't responded to those so the action has already failed.

I don't think that was the mission though to start with. So yes paradoxically, Assad could keep killing people and this strike would still be a success as long as it's not done with chemical weapons. I don't think anybody thought this would make him stop completely, nor was it designed to.

[bcking 3,157]

3 minutes ago, OriZ said:

I don't think that was the mission though to start with. So yes paradoxically, Assad could keep killing people and this strike would still be a success as long as it's not done with chemical weapons. I don't think anybody thought this would make him stop completely, nor was it designed to.

Who cares if he kills people with conventional bombs or chemical weapons? He is still killing civilians. 

 

We set a very very very low bar if we say it is okay for someone to eradicate thousands of innocent lives, but they must do it with "conventional weapons" only. As soon as they use a chemical agent, only THEN does it cross a line. That is a very very very low bar we have set for what we deem inappropriate. 

[OriZ 3,157]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

Who cares if he kills people with conventional bombs or chemical weapons? He is still killing civilians. 

 

We set a very very very low bar if we say it is okay for someone to eradicate thousands of innocent lives, but they must do it with "conventional weapons" only. As soon as they use a chemical agent, only THEN does it cross a line. That is a very very very low bar we have set for what we deem inappropriate. 

That's the bar Obama set and couldn't even stick to, while Trump didn't raise it at least for now he adhered to it. Like I said I agree people are still dying but no one ever claimed this attack was meant to end the civil war, it won't, and quite honestly I don't know what will.