Apr 7, 2017 I have serious doubts Assad actually did it. It makes no sense. Why would he launch a chemical weapons attack that obviously could provoke a US response on his own people when he is on the precipice of victory? Also, Trump is such an idiot. He just does whatever the last person in the room tells him to.
Apr 7, 2017 this chemical war attack is more fake tan iggy azalea a---, why do you attack your own people in a city where you are winning the war and kicking out the Isis? probably that guy in Coventry that is all of deparment of human rights in Sirya got mad lol. That Syria thing is only a war of power between Russia an US for the gas pipelines of middle east and the press of both sides are cleraly influenced by them.
Apr 7, 2017 Im starting to doubt that Trump actually treated the yesterday's attack as an act of retaliation.
Apr 7, 2017 @Michael Myers it's not as simple as "people bitching" - this is a complicated issue and lives are at stake I'm really grappling with what I think of this. There is a part of me that thinks maybe on its face, as an isolated incident, it was a good move? (I put a question mark there for a reason, I'm conflicted here.) Assad is a monster and there's something to be said about a show of force to repudiate what he's done and show him it isn't acceptable to the international community. Obama never knew how to handle Syria, and it showed. But broadly, I'm worried about this being a slippery slope into something bigger. It seems to hint that Trump will want to stick his nose in places they don't necessarily belong, which is....troubling, to say the least. He didn't exactly run as an interventionist, but how else do you label this but interventionist? But beyond the obvious and inevitable contradictions from Trump himself, let's think about the precedent this sets and what happens next. How does Russia ultimately react to this? Iran? What does it mean down the road, when Assad decides he wants to do something like this again? Trump will turn this into a d-ck measuring contest in a heartbeat, whether it's in our national interest or not. I won't pretend to be a seasoned expert on foreign policy - my worry is that Trump isn't either, and he's going to be more concerned with looking like a Broad Shouldered Leader (trademark Mike Pence 2016) than the soundness of the policy. I also personally find it a bit concerning that he didn't go to Congress for approval (apparently this is very very close to the strike Obama intended to take several years back before failing to get Congressional authorization)....again, not so much for this isolated strike, but for what it suggests about what he will do down the road. It isn't hard to imagine waking up one morning to find out he bombed North Korea and Paul Ryan just found out about it 5 minutes before I did. Doesn't exactly help me sleep at night.
Apr 7, 2017 He just wants a date on the beach While my brothers and sisters are dying Good job @Michael Myers good job police man
Apr 7, 2017 How is this good? The civil war in Syria isn't going to get any better at all. Only thing that is truly changed is that our tensions with Russia are worse.
Apr 7, 2017 No matter what they do things will continue to be s-----y there. Very funny @Owl 2034 !!!!!! @Swizz good post, fair enough
Apr 7, 2017 Yea I mean I guess we could have asked them nicely to not use chemical weapons again. Then, if they didn't listen and continued to do it, we could just turn our backs and let them gas themselves to death. That would be pretty neat.
Apr 7, 2017 Yea they're pretty much perma-f-----, as-is, but at least we can tell them to take their self-fuckery down a notch.
Apr 7, 2017 I bet this gave China some leverage in its meeting with North Korea, though. Gives them a chance to say "Alright Korea, you guys better play along with us because America is obviously with the s----s"
Apr 7, 2017 Something still smells fishy about this. Literally no motive for Assad to gas his own people. I still think it was the rebels with the support of John McCain and Hillary. The goal was to create a war, and they succeeded. Hopefully Trump has his stuff together and if he's gonna nation-build, hopefully he does it successfully, without innocent lives lost. I have faith in him.
Apr 7, 2017 McCain and Lindsay Graham are the worst. Lowkey hate that they're as well known as they are.
Apr 7, 2017 Use nukes = get bombed Use gas = get bombed Swift punishment needed to happen to let them know this is breaking international law.. I think Obama would have made the same decision... except he would have waited for approval and then by then your targets are possibly on the move and gone. This is literally the first direct attack and it was a reaction of their decision to use gas. It lets it be known that there are simply things you don't do and this was clearly a test to see how USA would react. If we did nothing, what does that say? That internationally the world is scared of ISIS or Syria? Russia is scared shitless that ISIS is going to enter their country and they can't possibly be stupid enough to go to war with us over this. If so, it means they don't support international law. No one wants to go to war and if Syria wants to k--- their own people without gas, so be it. There wouldn't have been a response. Russia is desperate and wants that oil badly because they keep taking L's so they are making a big deal out of it and quite frankly Trump just let it be known that there is an international code to follow. There won't be WW3 over this. Russia has broken treaties this year by deploying their own missile. Which gets a pass because it's a f---ing missile. This is gas were are talking about and is deemed by all countries to be worthy of a response, just like a nuke would be. Trump has repeatedly said that he intends to focus on America and not international countries but his hand was forced in this instance. You can't let them think this was okay and it also let's places like North Korea know that he is in fact, serious. Again, no one wants war but if you let this s--- slide, regardless of who actually did it, it says a lot about the international world today and paves the road for possible attacks because lack of action. If it actually came down to it... I think Trump would ask Congress for an actual declaration of war, he's not just gonna do it. Having that been said historically, we go to "war" all the time without approval so it depends on the scale and what's happening/who's involved. I don't think it's gonna happen.
Apr 7, 2017 Great post. The major concern certainly is down the road: how Russia/Iran/Assad move their chess pieces. I don't like the idea of trump playing war games with Putin; it's not a beneficial position for the U.S. to be in (though the fact that McMaster is Trump's [new] national security advisor does reassure me). At the same time though, Assad had to be put in check. The obama administration tried going the diplomatic route after the attacks on Damascus. Clearly, it didn't work out the way it was suppose to since there were subsequent chemical attacks the following years. The Trump administration coming in and basically saying "we have to accept Assad" didn't help either. A strong stance had to be made. Not just for the innocent civilians in Syria but also to reassure our allies in the region that we're not going to let Assad/Russia do as they please without consequence. I'm totally with you on your concern of the broader issue. I could very well see Trump turning this into a d-ck measuring contest and that would be trouble for the U.S. I'm hoping this is just an isolated response and he listens to his advisors instead of letting his ego dictate military action. Part of me is hopeful because a lot of his allies on the far-right criticized the military action last night. Like you said, he didn't run on being an interventionist and that's one of the main reasons his core base liked him so much. If he starts seeing the likes of Sean Hannity, Alex Jones, Ann Coutler etc. turning on him, he might back down. These are his strongest allies and have been from the very beginning.
