I stand with Trump with regards to striking Assad to send a message.
My concern is that since we've not only took action in the middle east, but also are on the verge of flexing our muscles against North Korea, that we didn't make things worse.
It is a concern, but N Korea is a different deal.
I suspect that was why we met with China this soon. We need China to take the lead against N Korea. The only arm twisting beyond a military option has to come from China. We, meaning the west, has done about all it can do.
The problem is Kim Jong-un is looking for a fight to prove he doesn't have a small penis and a bad haircut.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
Oh don't get me wrong Arch, the response was well deserved. I think the choice of weapons and little actual damage was less of a response than I would have prefered but the message was delivered nonetheless.
It's the nature of the gassing, the Russian troops being there, the way Russia was notified, and the little damage that makes this look more like a distraction to me.
Trump and company were under a relentless micro scope in the news cycle and losing at every turn by either showing incompetence, fracturing, or questionable actions and continuous ties to Russia being leaked.
This one action diverted almost all attention from those things and scored Trump a few days of hero-like status throughout the world. This was a much needed win and turn of events for Trump. ~ a distraction.
The notification to the Russians? How can that NOT make sense?
"Hey, we're not looking to start a war with you guys here, right now, but we ARE going to bomb that ammunition dump/supply at the air base. We're going to do it, at this time. You've been warned. Get your guys out of there."
I think that was a wise move. A move that says/said "we aren't looking to fight you, but we aren't going to let assad use chemical weapons either."
I stand with Trump with regards to striking Assad to send a message.
My concern is that since we've not only took action in the middle east, but also are on the verge of flexing our muscles against North Korea, that we didn't make things worse.
It is a concern, but N Korea is a different deal.
I suspect that was why we met with China this soon. We need China to take the lead against N Korea. The only arm twisting beyond a military option has to come from China. We, meaning the west, has done about all it can do.
The problem is Kim Jong-un is looking for a fight to prove he doesn't have a small penis and a bad haircut.
Yep. I think we are going to have to go to war with North Korea to disarm them. Won't surprise me at all. We can't have the threat to Japan, the Philippines, other allies, and our west coast; it's too much risk to accept in my opinion. We've actually given peaceful resolution a ridiculous number of opportunities in NK and all they want to do is hold us hostage for ransom.
Allowing them to have capable long range missiles armed with nuclear warheads is unacceptable in every way.
Prepare for 'real war': Russian army chiefs threaten to retaliate against Trump if he crosses their 'red line' again as Putin's diplomats in London sound an ominous warning of escalating conflict
Prepare for 'real war': Russian army chiefs threaten to retaliate against Trump if he crosses their 'red line' again as Putin's diplomats in London sound an ominous warning of escalating conflict
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I'm not sure Trump should let this threat stand. Russia and I ran need to know they can not dictate terms to Trump.
Obviously I don't want a war with Russia, but I think this statement kind of backs trump into a corner.
Prepare for 'real war': Russian army chiefs threaten to retaliate against Trump if he crosses their 'red line' again as Putin's diplomats in London sound an ominous warning of escalating conflict
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I'm not sure Trump should let this threat stand. Russia and I ran need to know they can not dictate terms to Trump.
Obviously I don't want a war with Russia, but I think this statement kind of backs trump into a corner.
I don't want a war either. We've drawn a red line before, then ignored when it was crossed. We didn't back up our "line".
Now, we have. Do we continue to do so, or do we back down due to a russian threat? It's not an easy time to be president.
this has turned from "send a message" to complete cluster....
How did this go from crossing a red line because of chemical attacks and children, to striking Assad that ends up killing children?
now we got Russia talking smack, North Korea talking smack, Iran talking smack, Republicans in office (Rand Paul) talking smack, a TON of trump supporters on social media mad that Trump blatantly reneged on his stance to not get involved, and now the media - which was initially for the strike, like most - talking smack once the dust settled and we see this for what it was:
a strike that did a whole lot of nothing, as far as positives are concerned.
congrats, we've managed to make the crapfest middle east somehow worse, yet again. not only that, but we've positioned strike groups in the korean peninsula as if we're days away from turning up on fat boy.
according to conservatives, Trump was suppose to be different.
but nope, he's just another GOP warmonger, whose idea of America being a great nation is kicking poor people to the curve and boosting up our already bloated military budget, and now potentially sending us into two different wars in two completely different regions of the world.
Trump is just another politician. America got played.
my bad, conservatives got played.
whoops, correction: Trump supporters got played.
Conservative logic: we don't have the money for meals on wheels and other programs that help our citizens, but we got plenty of dough to go bomb some towel heads and...what did Americans call them back in the day? Gooks? Kimchi's?
conservatives care about kids in the womb, but once they're out? bomb that ass, son!!!
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Doesn't the u.s., pretty regularly, have navy around the korean peninsula? Doesn't the u.s actually have established military bases in S. Korea?
Meals on wheels? Really? Do you know how many homes I'm in on a monthly basis, that get meals on wheels delivered, and they go un eaten. Really, I'm talking retired people that have not a money concern what so ever. And they get food delivered to them on the regular.
Yeah, cutting that by 10-40% won't hurt those that actually need it. Give food to those that need, not to those that don't.
sending a strike group while tensions are flaring with north korea is sending them the message that the US is ready to throw hands.
YOU might not think that's the message being sent, but that's what THEY think. imma need you to think outside the bubble when it comes to this.
as far as meals on wheels, is it that the majority that don't need it, or just a few? do you have hard numbers from credible sources?
cause if not, sorry, i'm not gonna go off of your anecdote. for example, you're also the same dude who doesn't know any farmers with illegal workers, even though the stats say there are tons out there. so no disrespect, but your anecdotes don't seem to be lining up with whats going on in the rest of the nation, as a whole.
i believe you when you say you're not in favor of another war.
but i have to ask you, as someone who voted for trump: who far does your loyalty go?
you voted for him. you bought into what he was selling. so IF - and man i hope it's an IF - crap hits the fan and we got two wars going....
you signing up? you gonna support the prez you voted for? why or why not?
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Trump cares what the internet says. He's always on it.
that answer right there is all that's needed. no point in responding to the rest.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
I dont think he cares what the internet says. I think he likes putting out his opinion to the masses.
i disagree. i think he cares a lot about what the internet says, especially when his own supporters start blasting him.
Rand Paul also blasting him isn't helping.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
You do know, don't you, YOUR girl, hillary, said she would've launched on Syria. Right? You do know that, right?
As for meals on wheels, how the hell would I know the stats? I can only tell you what I see.
As for cutting gov't. spending.........heck yes. Cut spending, and I know there isn't one single program that thinks they can deal with a cut. Not 1 department feels they can deal with a cut. It's always "we need more money". And when you look into it a bit deeper, it often times comes out "well, we spent what we were budgeted, and no, we can't say service improved, but we need more money."
Sorry swish, we need fewer federal workers, and fewer managers, etc.
What we need is action, not people sitting on their butts collecting a pay check.
we will see. his wishy washy stance on Syria is troubling.
as far as Rand paul, i really don't know how you feel about him.
but regardless on how you feel about his ambitions, as yourself this:
is he wrong?
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
why are you bringing up hillary? what does she have to do with this?
she isn't president. her opinion DOES NOT matter anymore. stop talking about her like some stalkerish ex boyfriend. jesus christ dude.
i disagree with your opinion on meals on wheels. but i understand that's the only point you can debate in that post of mine because when it came to the actual conversation of war you don't really have any rebuttals.
funny how when it comes to programs that help people out, you're for cutting it, but when it comes to the military budget, you're always silent.
so i'm not gonna respond to anything to you that isn't dealing with the subject at hand, which is syria.
also, until you answer this:
Originally Posted By: Swish
but i have to ask you, as someone who voted for trump: who far does your loyalty go?
you voted for him. you bought into what he was selling. so IF - and man i hope it's an IF - crap hits the fan and we got two wars going....
you signing up? you gonna support the prez you voted for? why or why not?
then we have nothing further to discuss, for now.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
I dont disagree with Rand. If Trump wants to do anything further he needs to take it to congress.
And I love Rand Paul. I hope he runs for Pres under the Libertarian Party. I would totally vote for him. He is smart to partner with Fox News to get the name-face recognition out there so he can run again. Plus he can push his libertarian views on Fox News viewers.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
To be fair, that is something that - until yesterday - was perpetuated by the current and previous administration.
I agree with everything else you said except the above is total BS!
It was the current administration that is on the record for stating that Assad's tenure would be up to the Syrian people to take care of. Two days later Assad gassed his own people.
Relax.
I really want to avoid the conversation of which administration is better/worse because it's really irrelevant, but I did view the red-line situation as a failure. The Russians came in and took control and we didn't look great. Worse now that the weapons which were supposedly taken away were just utilized again.
This is all just the basis of my rationale. Again, I want to avoid going down the rabbit hole. What I imagined happened with this administration is that Russia/Assad felt that they were in a place to get away with the action due to everything going on with this administration. They overestimated. Now we're in an awkward face-off.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
I think Putin is playing this administration like a flute. Putin has used this situation to sort of punk Trump and put him in a damned if he does damned if he doesn't situation.
I can't remember, seriously can't remember, the last time Russia blatantly and openly threatened us with war daring us not to cross a line. Putin seems to be edging toward that war in his effort to be a more relevant world player.
He is as much of an opportunist as I've seen. His only move though seems to be his willingness to always up the ante or be the last one to turn away in the game of chicken.
At some point, though, someone will call his bluff. I don't know how it will happen or who will be involved, but I imagine it's going to happen at some point.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
People tend to make more of this attack on Syria than it really is. Here is where we now stand...
-The Message was sent, no Chemical weapons! We will be back if they use Chemical weapons again. Trump has reminded the world of who's in charge.
-This is a position of strength for President Trump.
-Putin now blusters and yells that he won't stand for it again. (key word, "again")
-Putin is furious with Assad for using those Chemical weapons. Putin is in a position of having to either defend Assad's use of those weapons or condemn his ally before the world. Putin must answer the question, "How was it they loaded Chemical weapons when you have advisers on the ground with their military?" Putin must answer the question, "You told the world his Chemical weapons were removed from Syria, what gives?"
-It has placed Putin in a position of weakness!
-Rex Tillerson arrives in Moscow today or tomorrow to begin formal negotiations with Putin. -Our adversary is in a position of weakness while our President is in a position of strength.
The problem is that Putin consistently takes the third course of action: denying that things happened the way everyone says they did. Didn't he already say something along the lines of "it was a bombed dropped on a chemical weapons facility that the rebels controlled" or something like that?
He consistently denies, denies, denies, and China typically has his back.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
The problem is that Putin consistently takes the third course of action: denying that things happened the way everyone says they did. Didn't he already say something along the lines of "it was a bombed dropped on a chemical weapons facility that the rebels controlled" or something like that?
He consistently denies, denies, denies, and China typically has his back.
Your correct ... that makes Putin easier to deal with in the sense that you know what the response is going to be ....
Look .. this was going to come to a head at some point ... regardless of who the president was ... there's 2 fronts ...
- Russia, Syria and Iran ... this one is playing out in Syria ...
- China, NK ... this ones playing out in NK ...
OBUMa decided to leave these problems for the next president and he let all the parties involved do anything they want ... and this isn't being done to compare admin's .. its being said because there the facts that have helped lead us to where were at today ....
- he did NOTHING when China built up the South China Sea islands ... - he did nothing about fatso breaking the un resolutions on an almost daily basis ... - he did nothing when Russia ONE DAY after Putin assured him face to face they would not move into Syria .. the NEXT DAY Putin started moving troops and planes into Syria ... WE DID NOTHING ... - he BANK ROLLED IRAN .... no one wants to talk about that ... u have any clue how much that helped Iran, Syria and Russia ... that money is FLOWING through all three of those countries in various ways ....
So now ... here we are ... our options were to do nothing once again or to do something ...
So guys like U and Swish that disagree with Donnie ... can u guys please tell me how u think it should have been handled? ...
Do we do nothing again ... or do we try diplomatic sanctions ... *LOL* ... they've been so affective in the past ... .... or do we take some other type of military action ...
What would u guys have done .... you want to rip Donnie w/o providing your solution ... what is it ..
Keep in mind ... this is/was going to come to a head at some point .. this has been brewing for about 3 or 4 years now ... and at some point we were going to be forced to take our heads out of the sand and deal with it ... no matter who the president is ...
but i have to ask you, as someone who voted for trump: who far does your loyalty go?
My loyalty goes as far as it does for any president. Simply put, I hope they make good decisions.
Quote:
you voted for him. you bought into what he was selling. so IF - and man i hope it's an IF - crap hits the fan and we got two wars going....
Yes, I voted for him. Does that mean I automatically, in your eyes, have to agree with everything he does? (and keep in mind, he wasn't "selling" a war during the campaign. )
Quote:
you signing up? you gonna support the prez you voted for? why or why not?
Come on swish. I'm not for a war. I'm not even 100% sure I agreed with the cruise missile attacks.
"My fellow Americans: On Tuesday, Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad launched a horrible chemical weapons attack on innocent civilians. Using a deadly nerve agent, Assad choked out the lives of helpless men, women and children. It was a slow and brutal death for so many. Even beautiful babies were cruelly murdered in this very barbaric attack. No child of God should ever suffer such horror."
So it appears that he doesn't consider barrel bombs or other bombings of innocent children a barbaric act. Only when chemical weapons are involved.
So it's not that innocent children are being slaughtered, it's a certain manner in which they're being slaughtered.
Now I agree with the attack, but as Eve has said, this was a very strange statement to make in regards to it.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Lol, his tweets are coming back to bite him in the ass. Especially that first one.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Lol, his tweets are coming back to bite him in the ass. Especially that first one.
He could probably care less. If I were him I would de-activate the presidental Twitter account and never look back.
On a more serious note, can anyone explain to me why Russia supports Syria? I know there are historical reasons and things behind it but I just don't get it at all.
Syria buys a lot of weapons for the cash strapped Russians. They also house Russia's only Mediterranean naval base for ships that patrol the Black Sea.
Ex-Obama officials show true colors on Syria after strikes
President Trump’s missile strikes on the Assad regime have re-opened the divide among former Obama administration officials over their much-critiqued Syria policy.
While some Barack Obama allies criticized Trump and defended the former administration's diplomatic approach, others could hardly contain their relief that the U.S. had taken military action in response to chemical weapons use.
“Donald Trump has done the right thing on Syria. Finally!! After years of useless handwringing in the face of hideous atrocities,” tweeted Anne-Marie Slaughter, a former policy planner in Obama’s State Department.
Slaughter lauded Trump for doing what some say Obama should have done years ago: punish Syrian President Bashar Assad for using chemical weapons on civilians.
Obama vowed in 2012 that such actions would cross a “red line.” But he failed to enforce the promise a year later when hundreds of Syrians were killed by sarin gas and instead brokered a multi-nation deal in which Assad pledged to remove his chemical-weapons stockpile.
Kerry, however, was notably frustrated about such diplomatic efforts having no military backbone, even as he voiced public support for the deal and claimed -- erroneously, it turned out -- that it removed "100 percent of the chemical weapons."
“I think you’re looking at three people, four people in the administration who have all argued for use of force, and I lost the argument,” Kerry told a group of Syrians last year at a United Nations meeting, according to an audiotape obtained by The New York Times.
In the wake of the Trump missile strikes, a source close to Kerry said he was “absolutely supportive” of the decision and “gratified to see that it happened quickly,” according to Politico.
Another former Obama official was quoted in the same article saying, "Our administration never would have gotten this done in 48 hours. ... It’s a complete indictment of Obama."
I agree that Obama would not have acted this quickly. I give Trump credit for the strike and how fast he did it.
Obama was much more calculating and conservative, he would have dissected the possible outcomes and fallout before even considering authorizing a strike involving Russia this closely. But I'm not 100% sold that that is a flaw.
Trump is much more reactionary. He speaks and takes action like a modern day CEO. He makes the best decisions he can with limited data and as fast as possible. If he fails, he fails fast and course corrects and acts immediately again. This can work well in business with a little luck and a lot of money. Not so sure how good a fit it is for running the country or the most powerful war machine on the planet.
Both approaches have good points and bad. I'd prefer the sweet spot somewhere in the middle.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
.... or do we take some other type of military action ... 