In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On April 07 2017 11:34 lastpuritan wrote: Well, no matter we like it or not. He had courage to do it while Obama and whole world stood idly for years. Now Assad will think twice before targeting civilians, this little-something is what we couldn't achieve by previous administration for years and years. It's still a GOOD JOB.
more like a mixed bag. courage and stupidity can overlap a lot. to act without congressional approval/consent in waging war upon a country. also, this isn't about targetting civilians, it's about the use of chemical weapons specifically (at least ostensibly).
But Trump said he was shocked by civilian deaths and changed his views on Assad because images of dead children hurt him deeply.
Not saying Assad won't be killing civilians in the future, but he'll probably reconsider his plan to terminate all the population opposes him.
-
Congress would approve it anyways, why lose time when you can strike fast and send a strong message.
On April 07 2017 11:34 lastpuritan wrote: Well, no matter we like it or not. He had courage to do it while Obama and whole world stood idly for years. Now Assad will think twice before targeting civilians, this little-something is what we couldn't achieve by previous administration for years and years. It's still a GOOD JOB.
more like a mixed bag. courage and stupidity can overlap a lot. to act without congressional approval/consent in waging war upon a country. also, this isn't about targetting civilians, it's about the use of chemical weapons specifically (at least ostensibly).
But Trump said he was shocked by civilian deaths and changed his views on Assad because images of dead children hurt him deeply.
Not saying Assad won't be killing civilians in the future, but he'll probably reconsider his plan to terminate all the population opposes him.
-
Congress would approve it anyways, why lose time when you can strike fast and send a strong message.
Or Trump lied and launched missiles to seem stronger than Obama, doesn't give a shit about kids and just wanted to look tough.
They didn't strike that fast. They warned Russia, Assad's ally, and the base was free of staff when it was hit. They literally called ahead before sending the missiles.
And if it was going to be approved anyways, not reason to deprive the American people of the public discussion.
On April 07 2017 11:34 lastpuritan wrote: Well, no matter we like it or not. He had courage to do it while Obama and whole world stood idly for years. Now Assad will think twice before targeting civilians, this little-something is what we couldn't achieve by previous administration for years and years. It's still a GOOD JOB.
more like a mixed bag. courage and stupidity can overlap a lot. to act without congressional approval/consent in waging war upon a country. also, this isn't about targetting civilians, it's about the use of chemical weapons specifically (at least ostensibly).
But Trump said he was shocked by civilian deaths and changed his views on Assad because images of dead children hurt him deeply.
Not saying Assad won't be killing civilians in the future, but he'll probably reconsider his plan to terminate all the population opposes him.
-
Congress would approve it anyways, why lose time when you can strike fast and send a strong message.
why do you think congress would approve it? they didn't approve it last times chemical weapons were used to kill civilians.
also, that tens of thousands of children have suffered horrible deaths due to assad isn't new. this recent extra few hundred (not sure on the number) isn't that big a shift in what was before.
On April 07 2017 11:34 lastpuritan wrote: Well, no matter we like it or not. He had courage to do it while Obama and whole world stood idly for years. Now Assad will think twice before targeting civilians, this little-something is what we couldn't achieve by previous administration for years and years. It's still a GOOD JOB.
more like a mixed bag. courage and stupidity can overlap a lot. to act without congressional approval/consent in waging war upon a country. also, this isn't about targetting civilians, it's about the use of chemical weapons specifically (at least ostensibly).
But Trump said he was shocked by civilian deaths and changed his views on Assad because images of dead children hurt him deeply.
Not saying Assad won't be killing civilians in the future, but he'll probably reconsider his plan to terminate all the population opposes him.
-
Congress would approve it anyways, why lose time when you can strike fast and send a strong message.
Or Trump lied and launched missiles to seem stronger than Obama, doesn't give a shit about kids and just wanted to look tough.
They didn't strike that fast. They warned Russia, Assad's ally, and the base was free of staff when it was hit. They literally called ahead before sending the missiles.
And if it was going to be approved anyways, not reason to deprive the American people of the public discussion.
Why would you go into a public discussion if you already gave the president that power, I wonder.
I see nothing wrong with his desire to look stronger, some media keeps portraying him as a weak president vs Putin and a betrayer. Regarding his character, it's pretty normal for a guy like him to try get his reputation back.
The goal of the strike was not killing SA soldiers, but destroying one of their airfields. And warning Russians is a good sign to keep neutral relations with Russia.
You would be cursing Trump if he killed Russians inside that base and praising Obama for sending a great message without killing anyone.
On April 07 2017 11:34 lastpuritan wrote: Well, no matter we like it or not. He had courage to do it while Obama and whole world stood idly for years. Now Assad will think twice before targeting civilians, this little-something is what we couldn't achieve by previous administration for years and years. It's still a GOOD JOB.
more like a mixed bag. courage and stupidity can overlap a lot. to act without congressional approval/consent in waging war upon a country. also, this isn't about targetting civilians, it's about the use of chemical weapons specifically (at least ostensibly).
But Trump said he was shocked by civilian deaths and changed his views on Assad because images of dead children hurt him deeply.
Not saying Assad won't be killing civilians in the future, but he'll probably reconsider his plan to terminate all the population opposes him.
-
Congress would approve it anyways, why lose time when you can strike fast and send a strong message.
Or Trump lied and launched missiles to seem stronger than Obama, doesn't give a shit about kids and just wanted to look tough.
They didn't strike that fast. They warned Russia, Assad's ally, and the base was free of staff when it was hit. They literally called ahead before sending the missiles.
And if it was going to be approved anyways, not reason to deprive the American people of the public discussion.
Why would you go into a public discussion if you already gave the president that power, I wonder.
I see nothing wrong with his desire to look stronger, some media keeps portraying him as a weak president vs Putin and a betrayer. Regarding his character, it's pretty normal for a guy like him to try get his reputation back.
The goal of the strike was not killing SA soldiers, but destroying one of their airfields. And warning Russians is a good sign to keep neutral relations with Russia.
You would be cursing Trump if he killed Russians inside that base and praising Obama for sending a great message without killing anyone.
I calling Trump on the bullshit excuse that he was moved by photos of dead kids. He wants to ban those same kids from coming here for safety.
I have few problems with the strikes, Assad has been a nightmare for the world for to long. More nations should stand up to him. I have a problem with how Trump went about it. How he didn't seek congressional approval. How this is going to be played up a him being strong on Assad, when they called ahead first to make sure the Russians and Syrian government had time to remove anything worth hitting. There are 5 more airstrips in Syria.
This shows all the signs of someone who wants to do the bare minimum possible, and then be praised.
On April 07 2017 11:34 lastpuritan wrote: Well, no matter we like it or not. He had courage to do it while Obama and whole world stood idly for years. Now Assad will think twice before targeting civilians, this little-something is what we couldn't achieve by previous administration for years and years. It's still a GOOD JOB.
no, it's outright stupid. The US has no right to meddle in the affairs of other countries. It has nothing to with courage, it's just Trump acting impulsive as usual and people praising him for it.
On April 07 2017 11:33 BigFan wrote: The fact that no one sees why this is problematic and outright stupid to do is troubling. On that note, I also wish the US would stop intervening in middle eastern affairs whenever they want.
The last 4 presidents at least ended up more interventionist than their campaign rhetoric. Something happens once you get there.
On April 07 2017 11:33 BigFan wrote: The fact that no one sees why this is problematic and outright stupid to do is troubling. On that note, I also wish the US would stop intervening in middle eastern affairs whenever they want.
Was stupid but we were expecting a war. Maybe we'll get one.
So, you're ok with people on either sides dying because we expected a war? Wars aren't fun. Sorry but this is a poor mentality.
On April 07 2017 11:55 Mohdoo wrote: Do we have anyone here who is skeptical that these chemical attacks actually happened?
I'm extremely skeptical that Assad actually did this. Western media is extremely bias and crap when it comes to covering ME. As a middle eastern, I see it all the time whenever I read arabic news and watch arabic channels. My advice to you folks is not to take everything you read at face value because this is the exact kind of stuff that leads to war. There is a reason that "Ignorance is Bliss" gets thrown around all the time. Personally, I want the US to stop interfering with the ME.
Autopsy results have revealed that chemical weapons were used in an attack which killed at least 70 people in Syria's Idlib province, Turkish Justice Minister Bekir Bozdag told reporters on Thursday.
Thirty-two victims of Tuesday's attack have been brought to Turkey and three have subsequently died.
On April 07 2017 11:55 Mohdoo wrote: Do we have anyone here who is skeptical that these chemical attacks actually happened?
I can't imagine either Zeo or Nettles breaking the Infowars party line. Incidentally they both spent the entire of 2016 insisting that a military strike on Syria would instantly trigger WWIII and that's why we would all die unless Trump were elected. If either of them were capable of shame, and I think it's evident to all that they're not, they should be feeling it today.
EPT
