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: 8854
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
Comments (1-22) not displayed.
.
.
.
#23. To: Tooconservative (#20)
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.
No. The REAL reason for my position is that Trump launched this attack because he was upset by the gassing of children, and I agree with Trump on that - I am too. I think that attack was justified on that ground. BUT, I allow that it was a false flag. In which case my rationalization for it being ok anyway is that Assad is an asshole dictator who deserves it for his crimes, and the net effect of it will be to accelerate the Russians' timetable for getting the war done and ISIS slaughtered. So it's good either way. And then there's another reason, relating to the politics of the bilious Right on Liberty's Flame, for whom some sort of judicial justification and black-and-white fact revelation is required to undertake a military strike. I don't post on this board to change policy - no policymakers read it. I post on it for relaxation. Usually I am trying to make points. But sometimes I am simply irritated at the childishness of some of the arguments, and the over-the-top histrionics, so I pour cynical acid all over everything for my own amusement.
What crimes do you believe he committed? Please exclude those hyped by the MSM which can be trusted no more with Assad than with Trump, and in fact, far less so. Which leaves you with nothing on Assad. You're claim about being open to the possibility of the chem attack being committed by the rebels is just BS. Assad deserved the missile strike because he is an asshole dictator who has committed crimes (as though Bush and Obama didn't). No, the only asshole I can point to in all this is you, quite honestly. Unlike Assad, I've actually had a chance to hear your side of the story, and it sucks.
While evidence against Assad is thin, we also are getting nothing credible from either Russia or Syria or Iran to back up their version. In past attacks, we had Western charity organizations or international weapons inspectors which gathered evidence, as in the 2013 gas attack the rebels tried to blame on Assad. Earlier, there was that group of German nuns who backed the regime. This time, no one is defending Assad and both Russian and Iran are providing pretty weak rhetorical support. Just because al-Nusra (al-Qaeda) and ISIS and all their satellite militias are so savage doesn't make Assad a Good Guy. Maybe they've turned him into a Bad Guy, reduced him to their level. In the midst of all this Assad-is-Hitler stuff is the motives for the rebel groups (who are themselves Hitlerian) to drag Assad down to their level and to eliminate Assad's justification that he is fighting terrorists and that no matter what Assad isn't as bad as the rebels. The West wants Russia to force Assad out so they can retain their relations with the Syrian Alawite military and government and keep control of their puny naval base there.
Tomahawk inbound. Better duck.
You haven't been paying attention to the last 50 years of Syrian history, have you?
Oh, and lookee here! The Russians today issued a statement that they will NOT shoot down US missiles if the US targets Syria again, because they are there to fight terrorism, not to get involved in an external conflict. Well, well, well, things ARE turning up roses, aren't they? Trump's surprise aggression was the "smack" of power politics that was needed to shake loose the pinballs and speed up the whole conflict. The heat is on Syria now to get the war won....that is, IF the Syrians know that it was a false flag. But of course the Syrians know it wasn't, and so do the Russians, which is why the Russians can be so complacent. They know there will be no more Sarin gas attacks, and so does the Syrian government. So, the US made it's point, the Russians reasserted their role is anti-terrorism, and the Assad government will proceed apace to kill the rebels. Trump won't have any need to hit them again. It's going to work out well. Russia and the US have come, quietly, to a deal. Excellent.
Maybe the Russians are going to try to force Assad out. Maybe they're afraid more evidence of his guilt will surface. Interesting that Tillerson is confronting Lavrov in Moscow today. Tillerson is on quite a diplomatic offensive, it seems. I think Haley is overstepping just a bit though, going further in her statements than Tillerson does.
Well good gravy, it's been all of a week or so since the gassing event, and the place it occurred is held by rebels, so exactly who is going to go waltzing in there to do an investigation? Don't expect Putin himself to pay a visit. The Russians have as much info as we do, which is only on-site reports (approved by people that hate him and Assad) and video. So if Putin did categorically make a statement about exactly what happened, it would certainly be as baseless as the US MSM doing so, which is what it has done.
Maybe they're afraid more evidence of his guilt will surface. And then what happens to Syria next? Syrians will get to sing the Iraqi Revolution Blues. When I think about how Saudi Arabia and Israel want Assad gone, the question comes up "why". Whatever the answer, it most certainly is not because either of those countries (and others) have some heartfelt sympathy for the Syrian people as they suffer under the oppressive and evil Assad, as if they did, they'd both be welcoming Syrian refugees but of course they don't. So it's safe to say that whatever the Saudi interests are in removing Assad, it has nothing to do with what's best for Syrians. If Assad is removed, All Syrians will be as bad off as Iraqis and Libyans, which is certainly far worse than they were before the Syrian civil war began. And with all the factions inside Syria, even if Assad is removed, it will not end the civil war. In fact, it will make it worse.
The usual argument revolves around pipelines to the EU. I don't normally like ZeroHedge but they covered it and included maps in this recent piece. ZeroHedge: Russia, Iran Warn U.S. They Will "Respond With Force" If Syria "Red Lines" Crossed Again Skip the first few paragraphs and dig in to the various pipeline schemes that are on the line, depending on the outcome of the Syrian civil war. The pipelines may or may not be the decisive reason why Syria is in a civil war. But there is no denying that pipelines are a reason why the fighting is so fierce.
I know. I'm just saying that in other incidents, we did have some independent sources to refute the party line on who was responsible for a massacre. I bet the Russians know more than they let on about what Assad was doing.
That's no problem. The Jihadists will remove all divergent factions and impose order.
Ah ha! I predicted this in a post. It was reported the Russians actually turned off their ADS radars before the strike.
Interesting and something to read up on. But there will never be a pipeline going through Syria as long as there's a 5-way civil war going on, which won't change with Assad's removal.
Given their close relations, it's certain they do, which means the US should either trust the Putin's word on the matter as more authoritative than their own, or outright call him a liar and WMD enabler. Obviously, the west has taken the latter option.
So let us boil it down to the facts that we agree on. Syrians bombed moderate terrorists, in response Americans bombed Syrians (killing soldiers, civilians and destroying military stuff). Right?
In place of Assad, what would you do differently?
Well, clearly they do not cry for the Yemen people who suffer even more, rather they relish in this.
Right? No. Poison gas was used. And the new US President reacted IMMEDIATELY, on the intelligence that US agencies provided him. So, here are the real facts: (1) Trump is President, and the Unites States is the world's greatest power, by far. (2) The US has intelligence forces that are strong and capable, and US leaders do not have to - and Trump WILL not, wait for a consensus from the rest of the world on what happened. If US intelligence has scoped it out and provides a credible case to the US President, in secret, the US President will act, unilaterally, as he sees fit to respond to the facts. Facts in the mind of the US President are not determined by democracy, or world opinion, or whatever the public sees in the news media. They are determined by him, based on what he thinks is credible. The CIA and other intelligence agencies here were credible, to Trump, and he didn't need anybody else. (3) Poison gas was used, and used to massacre civilians, mostly children. This enraged the US President, and so he struck at the perpetrator: the Syrian dictator's air force, at the base from which the attack was launched. Now, you may naysay it all you like, but Trump trusts his intelligence sources on this, so that's that. In the aftermath, it is clear that Russia does not want this to disrupt relations with the US. Russia needs good relations. It is likewise clear that Assad does not want to beard the US lion. Obama would stand back, but Trump will bomb him, and Assad is not strong enough or rich enough to be able to take on ISIS AND the United States. And Russia has made is clear that, when it comes to taking on the United States, the Russians are not going to get into a world war over Syria. So, Assad has no choice but to comply with the completely reasonable American demand that he not use Sarin gas anymore, and he won't. That is the strategic outcome. Trump launched one heavy strike, demonstrated what America can do, and as a result of this strike, we won't see Sarin gas used again. Sure, there are bad guys in Syria - and defeating the terrorists is the most important objective there. But it's not SO important that the US will permit the use of poison gas. Poison gas is OFF LIMITS TO EVERYBODY. Period. Because the US says so. Test the US, and you will get bombed, and nobody - in particularly not the Russians - will stop them from doing it. Russia has too much at stake in the world to let itself be sucked into a war with America over a tinpot dictator's desire to gas his own people. And so Russia has commanded Assad to never, ever do that again, and signaled the world that if Assad does it, and the US hits him again, that Russia will stand aside and let the US do it. Net result: Sarin gas will never be used again in this conflict, because Assad did, in fact, do it - just like the CIA accurately reported to Trump - and Trump's airstrike at Assad sent the message to Assad. Assad can win the war without gas, and in time, he will. But if he resorts to gas, the US will destroy him. At this point it is not a matter of opinion. The opinion of the US President has been made crystal clear, and the lesser powers WILL stand aside and respect that, because the alternative is to be obliterated by US airstrikes that they cannot answer. This will reverberate elsewhere. Notably, North Korea. The Chinese will need to exert a restraining hand on Kim, and they will do so. The alternative is that Kim will hose off another missile over Japan, and the US will blow up some stuff in North Korea, and nobody will be able to stop it. China will lose face, and North Korea will find itself in the same position as Assad. The Chinese cannot engage in direct aggression against the United States or POOF all international trade ceases - forget about tariffs, Chinese imports stop completely - and the Chinese economy melts down and they face internal revolution on account of it. They don't have the Navy or Air Force or nuclear forces to win YET. That airstrike by Trump bought a lot of breathing space for the United States.
You mean, like Bush did.
Like all Presidents do. In some cases, our intelligence gets it wrong. Not in all. Also, there is a political calculation. Bush was trying to move America to war, and he had oil interests keen on conquering Iraq regardless. So intelligence was trotted out, dusted up, etc. In Trump's case, he revealed nothing. He simply stated, as a fact, without further explanation, that Assad's people gassed a town, and therefore he struck at the airbase and planes whence the attack originated. Period. No politicking, no attempts to persuade people. A fait accompli was presented, and Trump gave his reasons. He did not discuss his sources, and has shown no interest in doing so. That is different.
You are a load of hot air, Vicomte. You have still not offered any credible motive for Assad to have authorized or ordered the chem attack. You make statements purporting to be fact about things you can offer no motive for. You shift from being open to the possibility that the rebels used or possessed the gas that was released, to announcing certainty that it was actually Assad who did it. You are not worth listening to any more.
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.
#42. To: Pinguinite (#40)
the REAL reason for your position.
#43. To: Vicomte13 (#42)
(Edited)
BUT, I allow that it was a false flag. In which case my rationalization for it being ok anyway is that Assad is an asshole dictator who deserves it for his crimes,
#44. To: Pinguinite, Vicomte13 (#43)
Which leaves you with nothing on Assad. You're claim about being open to the possibility of the chem attack being committed by the rebels is just BS. Assad deserved the missile strike because he is an asshole dictator who has committed crimes (as though Bush and Obama didn't).
#45. To: Pinguinite (#43)
(Edited)
No, the only asshole I can point to in all this is you, quite honestly.
#46. To: Pinguinite (#43)
Which leaves you with nothing on Assad.
#47. To: Tooconservative (#44)
#48. To: Vicomte13 (#47)
The Russians today issued a statement that they will NOT shoot down US missiles if the US targets Syria again, because they are there to fight terrorism, not to get involved in an external conflict.
#49. To: Tooconservative (#44)
While evidence against Assad is thin, we also are getting nothing credible from either Russia or Syria or Iran to back up their version.
In past attacks, we had Western charity organizations or international weapons inspectors which gathered evidence, as in the 2013 gas attack the rebels tried to blame on Assad.
This time, no one is defending Assad and both Russian and Iran are providing pretty weak rhetorical support.
#50. To: Tooconservative (#48)
Maybe the Russians are going to try to force Assad out.
#51. To: Pinguinite (#50)
#52. To: Pinguinite (#49)
Well good gravy, it's been all of a week or so since the gassing event, and the place it occurred is held by rebels, so exactly who is going to go waltzing in there to do an investigation?
#53. To: Pinguinite (#50)
If Assad is removed, All Syrians will be as bad off as Iraqis and Libyans, which is certainly far worse than they were before the Syrian civil war began. And with all the factions inside Syria, even if Assad is removed, it will not end the civil war. In fact, it will make it worse.
#54. To: Vicomte13, Tooconservative (#47)
Oh, and lookee here! The Russians today issued a statement that they will NOT shoot down US missiles if the US targets Syria again, because they are there to fight terrorism, not to get involved in an external conflict.
#55. To: Tooconservative (#51)
The usual argument revolves around pipelines to the EU. I don't normally like ZeroHedge but they covered it and included maps in this recent piece.
#56. To: Tooconservative (#52)
I bet the Russians know more than they let on about what Assad was doing.
#57. To: Vicomte13 (#42)
I allow that it was a false flag. In which case my rationalization for it being ok anyway is that Assad is an asshole dictator
#58. To: Tooconservative (#44)
In the midst of all this Assad-is-Hitler stuff is the motives for the rebel groups (who are themselves Hitlerian) to drag Assad down to their level and to eliminate Assad's justification that he is fighting terrorists and that no matter what Assad isn't as bad as the rebels.
#59. To: Pinguinite (#50)
Whatever the answer, it most certainly is not because either of those countries (and others) have some heartfelt sympathy for the Syrian people as they suffer under the oppressive and evil Assad, as if they did, they'd both be
#60. To: A Pole (#57)
So let us boil it down to the facts that we agree on. Syrians bombed moderate terrorists, in response Americans bombed Syrians (killing soldiers, civilians and destroying military stuff).
#61. To: Vicomte13 (#60)
Now, you may naysay it all you like, but Trump trusts his intelligence sources on this, so that's that.
#62. To: Tooconservative (#61)
(Edited)
#63. To: Vicomte13 (#60)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]