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

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

43 minutes 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.

At least it wasn't an aspirin factory 

[bcking 3,157]

10 minutes ago, OriZ said:

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.

Obama tried to intervene. He wasn't the one who "couldn't even stick to it". People were clamoring that he "needed approval", so he went looking for it and was shot down. The bar was then dropped by Congress at that point.

[OriZ 3,157]

1 hour ago, bcking said:

Obama tried to intervene. He wasn't the one who "couldn't even stick to it". People were clamoring that he "needed approval", so he went looking for it and was shot down. The bar was then dropped by Congress at that point.

Nah, Obama had no intention of getting involved militarily, or he would have acted. He had no problem signing executive orders for plenty of other things, and even after their little agreement with Russia and Syria as recent as a couple of years ago I believe it was they claimed on more than one occasion that they successfully removed all chemical weapons from Syria via diplomacy. They were proud, very proud.

Edited April 9, 2017 by OriZ

[CaliCat 3,957]

Obama 2.0?

 

 

 

 

 

[millefleur 5,046]

8 hours ago, CaliCat said:

Obama 2.0?

 

 

 

 

 

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[Transborderwife 4,666]

2 hours ago, millefleur said:

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

A little bit louder and a little bit worse 

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

14 hours ago, OriZ said:

Nah, Obama had no intention of getting involved militarily, or he would have acted. He had no problem signing executive orders for plenty of other things, and even after their little agreement with Russia and Syria as recent as a couple of years ago I believe it was they claimed on more than one occasion that they successfully removed all chemical weapons from Syria via diplomacy. They were proud, very proud.

The congress has and still is being passive aggressive on the topic of Syria.  It is their job to approve and fund war actions.  They do not want accountability and so they have figured out how to NOT vote on this topic.   

[IAMX 3,055]

1 hour ago, ccneat said:

The congress has and still is being passive aggressive on the topic of Syria.  It is their job to approve and fund war actions.  They do not want accountability and so they have figured out how to NOT vote on this topic.   

More of the same. It doesn't surprise me of the Senate.. just look at their Russia and Syria rhetoric from the start.. few parts of the GOP establishment that took a massive dump (I really don't understand why the word that rhymes with trap is censored, lol) on Trump are changed in that body of Congress. Trump can have the best intentions all he likes, but if he takes cues from the GOP establishment/neocon foreign policy, he will certainly hurt his chances in 2020. 

Edited April 9, 2017 by SRVT

[JoBri 548]

On 4/7/2017 at 1:53 PM, 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)

 

 

I was an NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) officer in the Army, and I was exposed to sarin nerve agent in war. I also have Iraqi Kurdish friends who had their loved ones attacked by sarin nerve agent. And I am thankful Trump took a strong stand, unlike his predecessor, to do something about it. Not just lip service. Not a face saving deal with the Russians. But real physical action to say "Hey! It stops here!". 

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

2 minutes ago, JoBri said:

I was an NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) officer in the Army, and I was exposed to sarin nerve agent in war. I also have Iraqi Kurdish friends who had their loved ones attacked by sarin nerve agent. And I am thankful Trump took a strong stand, unlike his predecessor, to do something about it. Not just lip service. Not a face saving deal with the Russians. But real physical action to say "Hey! It stops here!". 

But does it stop here?  The guarantors that there were no nerve agents available to Assad  was ,uuuhuh, the Russians.

I expected to see, but have not, a plan to destroy the stockpile of Chemical weapons we know about.

[JoBri 548]

I just want to add...

 

Chemical warfare gives me shivers. I KNOW what they can do! I know the affects. I was scared enough for my own self. But we are talking innocent babies here. Who will stand up for them?? If not us, then who? That is in part what moved Trump to do what he did. And we have Americans there too. Sarin alone will cause nausea, convulsions, vomiting. Cant breath. Your body loses the ability to function. It is like spraying RAID on an insect. And that is what these babies were being exposed to. And more. It is thought that other agents were at work as well. So who wants this to happen to their child? 

[JoBri 548]

2 minutes ago, ccneat said:

But does it stop here?  The guarantors that there were no nerve agents available to Assad  was ,uuuhuh, the Russians.

I expected to see, but have not, a plan to destroy the stockpile of Chemical weapons we know about.

There is a huge risk of it being released into the atmosphere, leading to exposure to other innocent people, if we attacked the stockpile. It doesnt matter if it is a deliberate or incidental relase, it will kill or maim regardless. 

[TBoneTX 45,303]

This must be bringing back vivid fears to you, Brian...

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

1 minute ago, JoBri said:

There is a huge risk of it being released into the atmosphere, leading to exposure to other innocent people, if we attacked the stockpile. It doesnt matter if it is a deliberate or incidental relase, it will kill or maim regardless. 

no one suggested bombing the stockpiles, but before we give Trump props for being effective on this topic,  let's see a plan.

[JoBri 548]

6 minutes ago, ccneat said:

But does it stop here?  The guarantors that there were no nerve agents available to Assad  was ,uuuhuh, the Russians.

I expected to see, but have not, a plan to destroy the stockpile of Chemical weapons we know about.

To remove the stockpiles safely would require American personnel on the ground, with the qualifications to do so. And to do so would require a military action with many boots on the ground to do so. He sent a quick message to Syria. To do any more than what he has done will take congressional approval to do so.