United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Trump Is Losing His Support Base After Attacking the Syrian Government
Source:
The Anti-Media
URL Source: http://theantimedia.org/trump-losing-support-base/
Published: Apr 8, 2017
Author: Darius Shahtahmasebi
Post Date: 2017-04-09 05:39:02 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 8612
Comments: 63
Although it is widely speculated that one of Trump’s aims in striking Syria was to garner further domestic public support for a political career off to a horrendous start, the result may, in fact, cost him a significant portion of his original support base. While Democrats and the media have rushed to praise — or at least failed to condemn — the president’s decision to launch yet another illegal strike on a sovereign nation, many of his original supporters have begun to express their dissatisfaction with the American president. A good example of this can be seen with one of Trump’s stalwart allies, United Kingdom Independent Party (UKIP) leader Nigel Farage. He has sharply criticized Trump for his decision to bomb Syria. “I think a lot of Trump voters will be waking up this morning and scratching their heads and saying ‘where will it all end?’” Farage stated, before adding, “As a firm Trump supporter, I say, yes, the pictures were horrible, but I’m surprised. Whatever Assad’s sins, he is secular.” According to the Telegraph, Farage is only one of many far-right Trump supporters who has expressed their distaste for Trump’s decision to strike the Assad government. The others include Milo Yiannopolous, Katie Hopkins, right-wing vlogger Paul Joseph Watson, Ann Coulter, and others from within the UKIP circle. Paul Joseph Watson, a highly popular Youtube commentator who also works as an editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars, shared a tweet stating the following: “If [Donald Trump] started a war with Russia and Syria because of an emotional reaction, then he’s not fit to have the nuclear codes.” “Hard to argue with this,” Watson captioned the retweet. “Guys, I can’t vehemently oppose destabilizing the Syrian government for 6 years and then support it just because Trump did it,” he also stated. Most importantly, Watson said, “I guess Trump wasn’t ‘Putin’s puppet’ after all, he was just another deep state/Neo-Con puppet. I’m officially OFF the Trump train.” Yiannopolous called the decision to strike Syria “FAKE” and “GAY.” Coulter ironically stated: “Trump campaigned on not getting involved in Mideast. Said it always helps our enemies & creates more refugees. Then he saw a picture on TV.” [emphasis added]. These pro-Trump pundits are not alone in their criticism of Trump’s military strike. As one Twitter user stated in response to Trump’s recent assertion that the U.S. should stay out of Syria: “What I am saying is the same thing, and pretty much everyone else who voted you in.” [emphasis added]. A Trump-supporting war veteran expressed his dissent over the strike, stating: “From a veteran, we need to stay out of Syria, NOT OUR PROBLEM! I did not vote for you for this! Jobs, Wall, Security.” [emphasis added] As one alt-right user astutely noted: “The AltRight is portrayed as bloodthirsty, ignorant and vicious yet every Alt Right person on Twitter right now is campaigning against war.” It appears many Trump supporters were not necessarily simply out of loyalty to Trump, but also, at least in part, due to a strong distaste for Hillary Clinton’s policies, particularly regarding Russia and Syria. Most surprising, however, is the fact that many of them have stuck to these principles, and Trump’s recent decision to strike Syria has not changed their mindset on the Syrian war and/or Russia. In this context, Trump supporters are actually proving more principled and honest than Obama and Clinton supporters considering many Obama supporters appreciated his anti-Iraq war stance only to stay silent as he bombed seven nations in a six-month period. Trump may start to unite Democrats and corrupt politicians behind him, but he ultimately may be losing the significant section of his voter base that voted him in as the antithesis to Clinton — not her alter-ego. We're revolutionizing the news industry, but we need your help! Click here to get started.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
Trump hit Syria because the Syrians gassed a bunch of kids. He was horrified and offended by it, and - unlike most of us - had the power to be able to punish them for what they did. So he did. Chances are that Syria won't use poison gas again, so Trump will have achieved his objective. If people like that, that's good. If they don't, well, they're not the one making the decision. He is, and I'm sure he doesn't regret it. If you saw his speech, he was truly offended by the killing of the children, so he punished Syria for doing it. It's no more, or less, than that. You may not like it. You may want to see something deeper in it. But there very probably is not anything deeper in it than that.
Go visit Ron Paul in his Port Arthur nursing home, Help him change his diapers. That's the best you can do.
I've considered that Trump is simply taking advantage of the situation, regardless of who actually did launch an attack or even if the Syrian bombing hit a stockpile of rebel sarin gas (as Russia/Syria seem to be saying). Of course, that would be profoundly cynical. But a strike by Trump on Assad at this time will strengthen Tillerson's hand in the upcoming ceasefire and peace talks with Syria and the Syrian rebel groups. Assad probably has won and can't be dislodged as long as he has Iran's and Russia's backing. But Trump can exercise a lot of leverage to reduce Syria's bargaining position. Trump isn't stupid. But is he so profoundly cynical that he would fling 60 Tomahawk missiles at a cost of $45M-$70M total just to improve his bargaining position with Syria as well as strike a little fear into the ranks of our rivals like Russia and China and our enemies like Iran and North Korea? I wouldn't put it past Trump to be exactly that cynical. It also strengthens his hand considerably to do something suddenly that was quite unpredictable. History provides countless examples of achieving strategic dominance through unpredictable action. This is, after all, exactly the kind of thing that McMaster and Mattis would be telling Trump IMO. Those two are among the most intellectual generals the Pentagon has ever produced and they are also highly regarded for their military prowess. It makes a lot of sense when you think about it. Who gassed the Syrian civilians? Who cares? As long as Trump's and Tillerson's hands are strengthened across the board and we draw our allies close into the Trump orbit. You have to ask what was gained by Trump and consider that he intended exactly this outcome. Could it be that Trump is playing the role of Ronald Reagan, Mastermind, as in the old SNL skit with Phil Hartman? You can't put it past him. Trump could prove to be extremely devious, like Nixon was. And LBJ was even worse.
Trump never had much support. His biggest source of "support" was the fact he was running against the frightening Hillary. As the incompetent has staffed his inner circle with family members and incompetents and has become more like Hillary, the illusion of support is fading. He never was anything but a loudmothed carnival barker with inherited money able to cash in on the stupidity of the American people anyway. American politics has become a national vaudeville act with the least dangerous canditates running for president. Trump won because he appeared to be the least psychotic commedian.
Trump at the height of his career, a WWE winner Trump and his Radical Islamic Terrorist loving goons, Hillary and McCain are trying to give Assad an haircut. They're hard at work trying to Make Islam Great Again.
You may not like it. What's not to like? If Hillary, McCain and ISIS are happy, all is well. /s I agree. It was an emotional decision,not a wise political decision. After all,ain't stuff like this WHY the United Nations is SUPPOSED to exist? He needs to get down on THEIR asses and tell them they either get their stuff in order and start policing the 3rd world,or he will cut off all the US money and aid that feeds the parasites back in their home countries and keeps them from assassinating their leaders. Chances are that Syria won't use poison gas again, so Trump will have achieved his objective. They would be crazy if they didn't. After all,the missiles were never a threat to anyone in the Muslim leadership,and they couldn't care less how many peasants die. Hell,Trump killing a few saves them the trouble. Now they pretty much HAVE to do this again because they know if they do it will bring them TONS of money and aid from Muslim countries,as well as a few countries that aren't Muslim,but just hate the US,and if they cower and DON'T do it,their funding will dry up. Success breeds success,and quiters never win. If Trump wants to do something worthwhile,he needs to start killing off the Muslim leadership and their money people,not mechanics and cooks at some airstrip. BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO! ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
Huh? None of those people fear missile attacks by Trump. One is insane,and the others know he won't do it because they can and WILL fling missiles back at him. BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO! ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
I think Assad does. Trump could have fired another 20 missiles from each ship for a total of a hundred. Imagine a hundred Tomahawks raining down on Assad's compound in Latakia and his presidential palace. It might not kill him but he would be very very unhappy. Similarly, Russia would not like to see it demonstrated that they cannot protect their client. So they may not be afraid of such a strike taking out Assad but that doesn't mean they wouldn't care if we did launch such a volley. Vlad has had a good run for the last few years and doesn't want to have to explain why he can't (or won't) protect Assad with the S-300 batteries. I would have been interested to see an attempt to use the S-300 to stop a Tomahawk strike like this one. The Tomahawk isn't very fast or stealthy but it might fly low enough to make trouble for the S-300's radars.
I completely agree with your editorial "cartoon".
Exercising rights is only radical to two people, Tyrants and Slaves. Which are YOU? Our ignorance has driven us into slavery and we do not recognize it.
...making it an emotional reaction which many here would characterize as typical of "bleeding heart liberals". It's a similar response we get from those types when they want to ban guns every time a child gets shot. Makes the claim of Ivanka's possible role in influencing Donald credible, and if so, a sound reason why Ivanka should be fired from White House activities. Maybe she didn't even do anything wrong, but a president should not be influenced in national security matters by the emotions of his daughter. She could be a dangerous weakness to Trump. This assumes the gassing was done by Assad. If it was instead done overtly by the rebels, whether purposely intent on framing Assad, or an "accident" when chem munitions held by rebels were hit by Mig-23 conventional weapons causing a chem discharge, one should expect more incidents in the future at the hands of the rebels, as the fallout from the incident (Trump bombing the airfield) was probably the best news rebels have had in the last 2 years. And why let a great opportunity go to waste? Why not go for a repeat and make Assad look even more evil?
Imagine the Russian response!
If positioned correctly, the S-300's would take out the Tomahawks that are rather slow flying jet aircraft. That is, if we didn't find a way to take out their controlling radars or jam them. And we do have a lot more talent in electronics than the Russkies. We warned the Russians so they wouldn't react to our strike. So they evacuated their guys and tipped off Assad's military. And they didn't try to use the S-300's or retaliate. Because then America would have had to try to take out the S-300's. And then you'd have a shooting air war with Russia in Syria. I notice Russia has told us firmly that they won't stand down next time. But maybe Trump doesn't need a next time. I wonder what polls will show this week. Trump up from 38% to maybe 55%? Wouldn't surprise me.
If the American people are that stupid... If positioned correctly, the S-300's would take out the Tomahawks that are rather slow flying jet aircraft. That is, if we didn't find a way to take out their controlling radars or jam them. And we do have a lot more talent in electronics than the Russkies. Don't kid yourself. The Russians can purchase the necessary electronic components from foreign sources.
Apparently someone also warned you also.
Well, if you got to decide the "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts" of this world, I'm sure that you would fire her pronto. But your opinion, and mine, and others', about how the world ought to work doesn't set law.
We shall see. I think that the Russians are spooked and won't let them do it again, because the Russians have probably estimated, correctly, that Trump will not back down. So, in the game of gas/America strikes back - the Russians have to back down every time and not do anything, be like Obama. Because if the Russians strike back at America, Trump will strike back at Russia. And thence escalation, and the end of the world unless Russia backs down. The Russians are in a difficult position. The easiest thing for them to do is to control their ally. So they will.
I would hope so! But more successful.
Because if the Russians strike back at America, Trump will strike back at Russia. And thence escalation, and the end of the world unless Russia backs down. I don't see it. The Russians have spent a lot on developing the S-300/S-400 missiles and their revamped Kalibre missile. They want to sell these missiles in the Mideast and Asia. They also want to sell the idea of allying with Russia and making massive purchases of Russian arms, a market they lost to us when the Soviet machine fell apart. And Vlad can't afford to look weak at home in Russia either. They cannot allow us to bomb their allies/customers with impunity or the bottom falls out for them in arms sales and in diplomacy. The Russians have pulled the plug on the confliction line. So no more polite consultation on where their planes and our planes and the Syrian planes will fly. And that seems to mean that we will fly no more sorties in manned aircraft over Syria, at least nowhere near an S-300 battery. You notice that we haven't exposed any of our aircraft to the S-300 systems already in place in Syria since the Tomahawk attack. I think Trump caught the Russkies by surprise. They miscalculated, thinking he wouldn't strike. I don't think he'll be that lucky again. I wonder what Trump would do if the Russians announced that, as a result of America's (alleged) war crimes, they are stationing battlefield nuclear weapons on cruise missiles there in Syria. Vlad has many options to escalate if he wants.
Well, if you got to decide the "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts" of this world, I'm sure that you would fire her pronto. But your opinion, and mine, and others', about how the world ought to work doesn't set law. This isn't about law. One criticism of Bill Clinton's sexual escapades in the oval office is that it set him up for black mail. That is not a lawful determination but a practical one. And to say that Bill Clinton should not engage in activities that open him up to blackmail with US national security is done so for the exact same reason as one would say that Trump should not have anyone advising him who can sway him emotionally. And if Ivanka went to her dad crying about photos of dead kids and demanding he do something about it, then that is a problem.
What Clinton was doing was immoral. Trump having Ivanka as an advisor is not immoral.
Given that Trump's purpose was to punish a gas attack, Trump won't need to escalate. Russia can't defend a gas attack. And indeed Trump prevented retaliation against Syria in the age of Obama by stepping in and saying they would police the gas stockpiles. The gas attack was a lapsus that resulted in an American strike. The Russians cannot afford another such strike, so they WILL control Assad - if he's the source - and they will triple down on suppressing the terrorist groups if Assad isn't the source. If there is another gas attack, Trump will strike again, harder. It will be focused on the gas attack. Russia can shoot down a few Tomahawks - if they can - to demonstrate their equipment - but they dare not shoot down manned American aircraft, if we use any. Trump is not bluffing about the chemical weapons. He has issued an order, in keeping with international law, forbidding their use. The Russians can't defend their use, and can't stop the US from hitting again, if they're used. It's too perilous for them. So they have to control Assad, and they have to take out the terrorists more swiftly...both of which things operate in favor of what Trump wants to see in Syria. So all in all it was an effective strike.
Maybe, maybe not. Turkey did shoot down that Russian jet in 2015 on the border. This led very directly to Russia's full entry into Syria, starting with that huge naval-launched missile volley that they flew across Iraq to hit Syrian targets. It also marks when the Russians deployed significant numbers of S-300 missiles in Syria (where Israel had always flown in before to bomb them before they could be deployed). Wiki: 2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown Before that, the Syrians shot down a Turkish jet in 2012 in international air space after it intruded into Syria. Wiki: 2012 Turkish F-4 Phantom shootdown So Turks will shoot down Russians and Syrians will shoot down Turks. I didn't see NATO getting involved either time.
Turks are Turks. Americans are a different thing. I think Russians might shoot down Tomahawks - if they can (it's a tricky targeting problem, so low). They won't shoot down US warplanes. So we may need to use manned strike craft.
We'll see. So far Syria has not been difficult over this. However, they are still recognized as a sovereign nation and have the right to control their airspace against anyone (which includes Trump). Syria will likely file formal protests against us and insist that we stop flying through their airspace without permission. Russia and Iran and the others will back them.
Like others I discussed Trump's strike with, you either refuse to see or cannot see the point I am making, the latter perhaps due to a desire to be loyal to Trump the man and president, instead of being loyal to what he stands for, or used to stand for. When a president makes decisions related to attacking another country, being influenced by irrational emotions, or any other influence that is unrelated to what is in the best interests of the country, it is BAD. Period. So any person who can exert such influence over said president should NOT be permitted to do so, and if teary-eyed Ivanka went crying to her dad about the pictures she saw and pleaded with him to punish Syria, then she needs to be removed from the White House. Period. If you want to talk about morality, 300 million people should not have to go to war with Russia because Trumps baby girl cried. THAT is immoral. Trump needs advisers who can think rationally and whom Trump can readily tell to go pound sand if and when he disagrees, and a good father will simply not do that to a daughter. Ivanka should go.
Indeed, *IF* Assad was the source. And what if the source was instead the rebels? Instead of the attack serving to punish Assad, it instead rewarded the rebels, in which case, we may see more such incidents which will be automatically assumed to be the work of Assad. Then Trump will be under political pressure to strike Assad again, which will further inflame US - Russia tensions. If the rebels have access to chem weapons, they could use them to greatly increase the odds of a USA-Russia confrontation, and it's all because the MSM has portrayed Assad as a Marvel Comic Batman villain, when the truth is he may be nothing of the sort. And as has been pointed out by multiple observers including Ron Paul, it makes no sense that Assad would have used chem weapons at this point, right after gaining a US policy change related to his presidency, and after a very productive year in, with Russia's help, taking back so much Syrian territory and putting all the various rebels on the run. I have YET to see any MSM come out and present a motive for Assad to have been responsible for this event, and Americans have by-in-large accepted the notion without scrutiny, critical analysis, or pause. Americans have seen too many batman movies. Seriously.
The second part of my sentence read "and they will triple down on suppressing the terrorist groups if Assad isn't the source." If Assad is the source, it's easy for the Russians to control the situation: launch Sarin attacks again, and you're dead. Simple. It doesn't happen again. But if Assad is not the source, then the Russians have a powerful incentive to go all in to get the war OVER, by conquering the enclaves where the terrorists are. So, either way, the pressure is on Putin to make sure that the gas attacks do not happen again, whether from Assad, or from Assad's enemies.
We are not ruled by robots. Human beings are emotional creatures, and we don't expect them to isolate themselves from their bases of support when in office. Do you know who the most influential person is in every single presidency? The First Lady. And she is unelected. It's impossible to separate men from their emotions, and it is undesirable to try. I understand where you are coming from, but it is completely unrealistic. It's the sort of thing that was argued back in the day as to why homosexuals could not serve - because they might be able to be blackmailed. EVERYBODY has sexual secrets or issues they don't want made public, so then by the same theory EVERYBODY could be blackmailed. But in truth, when you take the fangs out of the anti-gay laws and the purity laws, what happens is that people become much harder to blackmail, because people won't betray their country to spare themselves mild embarrassment. Most won't betray their country even to save severe embarrassment. We are men, not machines. We don't have to be free of emotion and human contact to effectively rule. Your point isn't lost, it's just grossly exaggerated. First Ladies have the same or greater influence as Ivanka Trump. We don't require celibacy of Presidents, to protect the national welfare. And we shouldn't. Because the national welfare is simply not that jeopardized by normal human emotions. And if it IS, that would indicate that there is something pathologically wrong with the nation that needs to be changed.
If Assad is the source, it's easy for the Russians to control the situation: launch Sarin attacks again, and you're dead. Simple. It doesn't happen again. But if Assad is not the source, then the Russians have a powerful incentive to go all in to get the war OVER, by conquering the enclaves where the terrorists are. So, either way, the pressure is on Putin to make sure that the gas attacks do not happen again, whether from Assad, or from Assad's enemies. hahahaha..... You do real realize that you have succeeded in holding Assad and Putin responsible for the gas attacks no matter who it was that actually did it, right, whether it was Assad or the people trying to kill him? I must say, Vicomte, the operative words that come to mind are "How convenient!" Trump was right to order the attack and that while it not even mattering who committed the atrocity. I think you are a lawyer, and if so, that skill of projecting responsibility is coming through very nicely! (Nothing against the profession, as that's simply what you're supposed to do to represent your client). But fine. You be the lawyer, and I'll be the judge, or at least the defending attorney. Speaking to the implication of your message, it's that Assad and Putin have not treated the civil war they are enduring as a particularly high priority, and they need to get off their asses and win the damn thing post haste, because until now they've just been goofing off. Oh, and they need to do it without those Migs that the US destroyed, but hey should be easy for a country racked with civil war for 5 years to replace. I'm sure building new ones could be made into volunteer High School projects throughout the non-rebel areas. Never mind that after some 8 years of occupation in Iraq and some twice that in Afghanistan, the USA could do not even square those countries away, and Iraq didn't even have a civil war. Well, I'll tell you what. Russia has nukes. No more than half a dozen of them on the rebel held cities, and yes, it'll be over. No more civil war. But no, that won't be good enough for the west because they used nukes which is another WMD. It's clear you are working to justify Trump's attack on Syria in a particularly biased manner. Which is fine, but you are clearly not giving balanced consideration to the facts, and that should be pointed out.
I'm afraid you are the one exaggerating. Of course presidents are human. We don't elect a supercomputer to run the country. But some obvious and improper influences can be minimized, and a crying baby girl is certainly one. And if it's true that First Lady's have been the greatest influence on the US presidency, then that's all the more reason why Trump should't have 2 of them!
You're not happy with the situation. I am. So I guess you'll complain away, as is your right. Trump will ignore you and surround himself with whom he pleases, and I'll support him on the matter. So that is that.
I must say, Vicomte, the operative words that come to mind are "How convenient!" Of course I realize that. Never let a good crisis go to waste. It's not about "fairness".
That's right. The RUSSIANS need to do it, because the Syrians can't. The Russians have deployed a lot of force there, and are deploying more. They want to move slowly and methodically. But if ISIS has Sarin gas, they need to move faster to secure the country, lest ISIS use Sarin again and the US attack Assad again, making the Russians look weak and making Assad's final victory less certain. All the airstrike really did was convey Trump's anger at the gassing of civilians, while putting everybody on notice that the US will now itself also engage in surprise attacks against things that it dislikes, something that the world could count on NOT happening during Obama's, and even during W's term. W always ponderously projected everything: Do this...OR ELSE we'll do that. And eventually we had to "do that". With Obama everybody knew they could do anything and he'd never attack. But Trump will attack first, without warning at all, if you violate EXISTING treaties and conditions. That complicates a lot of calculations. If Kim Jong Un is preparing to launch another missile over Japanese airspace, we might just blow it up with its missile crews on the pad before he even launches it. We might wait for the launch and then suddenly rain missiles down on the reviewing stand and take out the North Korean leadership. We MIGHT do anything. North Korea has no right to fire missiles through Japanese airspace, and the fact that they've ALREADY DONE IT several times MEANS that Trump could attack NOW, for reasons that happened in 2015. If ISIS has the gas, they need to use it quickly to get the benefit of more US strikes - IF they have the gas. But they don't. If they did, Washington or New York or London or Paris would already be dead.
After all the absurdity I pointed out in your position of holding Assad and Putin responsible for the gas attacks even if they were carried out by Assad's enemies, you you stand by it, and I didn't even point out that some of Assad's enemies are funded and supported by the same country that punished them for the chem attack happening. You are truly morally bankrupt, and embody the worst stereotype that lawyers are held to.
We never declared war and mobilized, as we should have. If we were going to invade, we should have gone in with a million men and occupied the place, rebuilt it in our image, like Germany or Japan or, I suppose, South Korea. Instead we went in, broke the government, and left a chaotic wreck. We would have been better off never to have gone in Iraq in the first place if we were not going to declare war. In this case, though, a scorching airstrike? It's free punishment on our part to an asshole dictator who needs it.
I am interested in winning. Conquest grants a title that the courts of the conqueror are bound to respect. Once we've won, then we can write the history books to justify the steps we took to do it. The greatest sin is losing a war, because then all of that bloodshed and expense was for nothing, and you get vilified for all of it for the rest of time.
My clients have always been pleased with my services, and have paid me handsomely for them. So, I'll see your "moral bankruptcy" and raise you a "pretty nice life" - with a crusty butter croissant on the side.
And this is what it really boils down to and the REAL reason for your position. You believe Assad is an asshole dictator, and that's the moral justification for bombing Syria, and that even if he didn't ever use chem weapons. Thanks for playing.
Correction: Assad IS an asshole dictator. It's not a question of my belief. We didn't hose off a bunch of missiles at Italy here.
Comments (42 - 63) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: Deckard (#0)
#3. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
(Edited)
Chances are that Syria won't use poison gas again, so Trump will have achieved his objective. If people like that, that's good. If they don't, well, they're not the one making the decision. He is, and I'm sure he doesn't regret it.
#4. To: Deckard (#0)
Trump Is Losing His Support Base After Attacking the Syrian Government
#5. To: rlk, Make Islam Great Again, Trump, Hillary, ISIS McCain, *Arab Spring Jihad* (#4)
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#6. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
#7. To: Vicomte13, Deckard, *Neo-Lib Chickenhawk Wars* (#1)
(Edited)
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#8. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
Trump hit Syria because the Syrians gassed a bunch of kids. He was horrified and offended by it, and - unlike most of us - had the power to be able to punish them for what they did. So he did.
#9. To: Tooconservative (#3)
Trump isn't stupid. But is he so profoundly cynical that he would fling 60 Tomahawk missiles at a cost of $45M-$70M total just to improve his bargaining position with Syria as well as strike a little fear into the ranks of our rivals like Russia and China and our enemies like Iran and North Korea?
#10. To: sneakypete (#9)
None of those people fear missile attacks by Trump.
#11. To: randge (#6)
#12. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
Trump hit Syria because the Syrians gassed a bunch of kids. He was horrified and offended by it, and - unlike most of us - had the power to be able to punish them for what they did. So he did.
Chances are that Syria won't use poison gas again, so Trump will have achieved his objective.
#13. To: Tooconservative (#10)
Imagine a hundred Tomahawks raining down on Assad's compound in Latakia and his presidential palace.
#14. To: Pinguinite (#13)
Imagine the Russian response!
#15. To: Tooconservative (#14)
I wonder what polls will show this week. Trump up from 38% to maybe 55%?
#16. To: Tooconservative (#14)
We warned the Russians so they wouldn't react to our strike.
#17. To: Pinguinite (#12)
Maybe she didn't even do anything wrong, but a president should not be influenced in national security matters by the emotions of his daughter. She could be a dangerous weakness to Trump.
#18. To: sneakypete (#8)
Now they pretty much HAVE to do this again
#19. To: Tooconservative (#3)
Trump could prove to be extremely devious, like Nixon was. And LBJ was even worse.
#20. To: Vicomte13, Gatlin (#18)
So, in the game of gas/America strikes back - the Russians have to back down every time and not do anything, be like Obama.
#21. To: Vicomte13 (#17)
#22. To: Pinguinite (#21)
#23. To: Tooconservative (#20)
Vlad has many options to escalate if he wants.
#24. To: Vicomte13, Gatlin (#23)
If there is another gas attack, Trump will strike again, harder. It will be focused on the gas attack. Russia can shoot down a few Tomahawks - if they can - to demonstrate their equipment - but they dare not shoot down manned American aircraft, if we use any.
#25. To: Tooconservative (#24)
Maybe, maybe not.
#26. To: Vicomte13 (#25)
I think Russians might shoot down Tomahawks - if they can (it's a tricky targeting problem, so low). They won't shoot down US warplanes. So we may need to use manned strike craft.
#27. To: Vicomte13 (#22)
(Edited)
What Clinton was doing was immoral. Trump having Ivanka as an advisor is not immoral.
#28. To: Vicomte13 (#23)
The Russians cannot afford another such strike, so they WILL control Assad - if he's the source - and they will triple down on suppressing the terrorist groups if Assad isn't the source.
#29. To: Pinguinite (#28)
And what if the source was instead the rebels? Instead of the attack serving to punish Assad, it instead rewarded the rebels,
#30. To: Pinguinite (#27)
When a president makes decisions related to attacking another country, being influenced by irrational emotions, or any other influence that is unrelated to what is in the best interests of the country, it is BAD. Period.
#31. To: Vicomte13 (#29)
The second part of my sentence read "and they will triple down on suppressing the terrorist groups if Assad isn't the source."
#32. To: Vicomte13 (#30)
Your point isn't lost, it's just grossly exaggerated. First Ladies have the same or greater influence as Ivanka Trump. We don't require celibacy of Presidents, to protect the national welfare. And we shouldn't. Because the national welfare is simply not that jeopardized by normal human emotions.
#33. To: Pinguinite (#32)
#34. To: Pinguinite (#31)
You do real realize that you have succeeded in holding Assad and Putin responsible for the gas attacks no matter who it was that actually did it, right, whether it was Assad or the people trying to kill him?
#35. To: Pinguinite (#31)
Oh, and they need to do it without those Migs that the US destroyed, but hey should be easy for a country racked with civil war for 5 years to replace.
#36. To: Vicomte13 (#35)
#37. To: Pinguinite (#31)
Never mind that after some 8 years of occupation in Iraq and some twice that in Afghanistan, the USA could do not even square those countries away, and Iraq didn't even have a civil war.
#38. To: Pinguinite (#36)
(Edited)
You are truly morally bankrupt,
#39. To: Pinguinite (#36)
(Edited)
and embody the worst stereotype that lawyers are held to.
#40. To: Vicomte13 (#37)
to an asshole dictator who needs it.
#41. To: Pinguinite (#40)
You believe Assad is an asshole dictator, and that's the moral justification for bombing Syria, and that even if he didn't ever use chem weapons.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]