Trump's Fail on Syria

[eddielee]

This now puts Trump in a situation where if he suddenly turns on Assad, he will infuriate his buddy Putin who is dead set Assad remains in power. I did not think President Obama did a good job at all on Syria, but Trump wanted to leave Assad alone and just focus on ISIS. At this point, we have few good options if at all but we do need a steady, professional, responsible hand from our President. Trump's history doesn't bode well we get that kind of leadership at all. We don't a twit barking on Twitter.... we need someone who can confidently project strength and leadership without coming across as a fascist or buffoon.

Damn, did we hit the booby prize on this one.

I don't like Donald Trump, but still I have been waiting and hoping that he would become a responsible President. I now see that this will never happen. Trump can't handle the problems with Syria, because it is beyond his wisdom. He is unqualified for the job he now holds.

 

[rareboy]

And apparently the Pentagon has no clue what TrumpCo. actually wants to do about Syria now.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/nancyyouss...-about-face-on?utm_term=.cndQ731Pp#.xuMolLZaK

I still maintain that his bluster yesterday is indicative of a president who actually doesn't have a fucking clue about what the US should do.

 

[cocksucker4use]

While we are on the subject, Obama went to war against ISIS without the approval of Congress, and he has never has explained why we are fighting that war. As a result Americans have never considered why. ISIS, as I understand it, wants an Islamic state. Why are we saying no? They are not nice people but neither is Assad. Who are the rebels we are supporting? Good guys are they? Who knows. Perhaps we should back out and let ISIS have its way. Or at least discuss it.

Well, looks like POTUS has decided, like his Democrat Liberal predecessor that Assad has to go. 50 missles on one of Assad's airfields, or what used to be one of his airfields. Interesting to see what our Russian allies...uh, his Russian allies will think about that.

 

[kallipolis]

Well, looks like POTUS has decided, like his Democrat Liberal predecessor that Assad has to go. 50 missles on one of Assad's airfields, or what used to be one of his airfields. Interesting to see what our Russian allies...uh, his Russian allies will think about that.

What a difference a day makes.

H. R. McMaster's growing influence is clearly being felt at the WH.

 

[Cormac135]

At last some action against Assad.

 

[evelyn]

It's definitely eight years of Trump now.

 

[rareboy]

Ask Richard Nixon about that.

 

[Telstra]

Since there are alot of lies everywhere,
is it 100% certain that Assads soldiers used chemical weapon ?

 

[NotHardUp1]

What a difference a day makes.

H. R. McMaster's growing influence is clearly being felt at the WH.

To wit: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/opinion/did-hr-mcmaster-win.html?_r=0

It's definitely eight years of Trump now.

Or the beginning of the rest of the slide. His waffling is again conspicuous. As the NYT article above correctly notes, the National Security Council is in disarray, to say the least.

President Trump's reactionary and emotionally charged press conference, his obvious lack of a wise or well-planned policy, and his kneejerk involvement in proximity to Russian forces is more than a little risky. This whole affair has all the potential of a Vietnam, or worse. Congress balked under Obama due to the third front worry. It isn't different today.

If war drums are beating, it could all bring down the administration in short order after a few disastrous moves. This is still the same United States that watched millions of Syrian refugees in flight and merely shrugged.

Chemical warfare deaths are ghastly, but so are drone deaths. These wars far from home have always been dubious for Americans. It hasn't changed because a handful more have died.

 

[kallipolis]

^That the WH/Russian relationship has been dealt a blow by Trump's decision to launch a missile attack on a Syrian government airbase does suggest that Bannon's influence has been stymied....for the present...enablingTrump to continue with Barack Obama's strategy of confronting Assad. This evidences the input of McMaster determined that Russian influence in Syria should be contested.

 

[NotHardUp1]

What I see in it is a witless president who first had no plan, then acted in reactionary fear of being seen as weak and cloaked it in the sanctimony of protecting babies. His language was no more comforting than Reagan's insipid reference to Russia on air as "the evil empire."

It's statecraft. It isn't a Save The Children promo spot.

Leaders like President Trump who are bankrupt of both skill and policy often get railroaded by events into taking precipitous and catastrophic missteps, all in the attempt to gain stature. Anyone listening to the president during the last year can hear in his words how desperate he is to earn basic respect and credibility, to appear presidential rather than actually reign as president which occurs naturally when one IS presidential in planning and actions.

 

[rareboy]

I would only add that this strike has pissed off a lot of core Trump supporters who see it as a betrayal of his non-interventionist America First Policy.

Many see it as only emboldening the very Islamist State radicals.

And as I noted in the other thread, it is in itself, a meaningless gesture.

 

[NotHardUp1]

It is essentially Twitter fodder.

If anything internationally, it is a call to the U.N. to grow a pair, but that is never going to happen. It was designed to be a eunuch by the Great Powers.

 

[Benvolio]

What I see in it is a witless president who first had no plan, then acted in reactionary fear of being seen as weak and cloaked it in the sanctimony of protecting babies. His language was no more comforting than Reagan's insipid reference to Russia on air as "the evil empire."

It's statecraft. It isn't a Save The Children promo spot.

Leaders like President Trump who are bankrupt of both skill and policy often get railroaded by events into taking precipitous and catastrophic missteps, all in the attempt to gain stature. Anyone listening to the president during the last year can hear in his words how desperate he is to earn basic respect and credibility, to appear presidential rather than actually reign as president which occurs naturally when one IS presidential in planning and actions.

Syria and Russia used chemical weapons in violation of international law, because they thought, after 8 years of Obamian weakness, that they could get away with it. Democrats always think that weakness brings peace and strength brings war. The world works exactly oppositely. Strength brings peace.

 

[kallipolis]

I am certain that the missile attack will not change Assad's strategy...but...could deter Assad's airforce from using chemical weapons against innocent civilians for fear of reprisals by the USA aimed specifically at destroying Assad's airforce....that thus far has been responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians who are merely bystanders in a war that is not of their making.

There are no angels in this horrible civil war.

 

[kallipolis]

I would only add that this strike has pissed off a lot of core Trump supporters who see it as a betrayal of his non-interventionist America First Policy.

Many see it as only emboldening the very Islamist State radicals.

And as I noted in the other thread, it is in itself, a meaningless gesture.

It was Trump's abandonment of Obama's earlier interventionist policy that encouraged Assad to use chemical weapons against innocent civilians as part of his terror campaign.

Trump's silence has been reversed by his decision to launch a missile attack on a Syrian government airbase. Assad's airforce has been instrumental in causing an enormous number of deaths of innocent civilians who are not participating in the ongoing civil war.

The only benefit of the American missile attack is its deterrence value, hopefully deterring the Syrian air force from launching further chemical weapons against civilians.

 

[evelyn]

Since there are alot of lies everywhere,
is it 100% certain that Assads soldiers used chemical weapon ?

Most people believed the WMD's in Iraq story. And now they believe this story as well. And once again, they do so quite unquestioningly.

 

[rareboy]

Syria and Russia used chemical weapons in violation of international law, because they thought, after 8 years of Obamian weakness, that they could get away with it. Democrats always think that weakness brings peace and strength brings war. The world works exactly oppositely. Strength brings peace.

Bullshit.

They saw Trump's weakness and vacillation and his apparent support to keep Assad in place and figured they could get away with it.

And ooohh. Now TrumpCo. has messed up some tarmac. Only 25 more airports to go and they might be able to make a dent in the Assad army's capbability.

But they won't.

And only the naive believe that Assad won't use chemicals again.

But once again, I ask the question.

Hundreds of thousands have died needlessly at the hands of the Assad regime.

Tell me again why these 75 people, killed by Trump's best friends, Putin and Assad matter more than all the others who probably died equally horrifically.

 

[rareboy]

By the way, listening to Trump's slow talk speech was like attending public speaking day at a school for the developmentally delayed.

It was mawkish and more the work of a 14 year old 'special' child than the address of the President of the United States.

 

[Stardreamer]

Since there are alot of lies everywhere,
is it 100% certain that Assads soldiers used chemical weapon ?

According to the White House, we were tracking the planes that dropped the chemical bombs and they came and returned to the airfield we hit.