Ohh but you forget the part I didn't put in
Neo, I think that quote showcase the difficulty of discussing with you in a nutshell.
*chuckles*
Oh damn didn't even notice that. I thought it was funny because he was inflammatory, but... darn it neo.
Well I hope Trump voters enjoy their new war, since they ostensibly voted for a lack of restraint.
Isn't Trump's popularity holding steady? So the US fully supports his actions still.
Neo,
are you being inflamatory? Or is this unintentional? or a clever troll?
Well I hope Trump voters enjoy their new war, since they ostensibly voted for a lack of restraint.
>Vote for donald duck because that crooked hillery and her emails would go to war with russia over syria
>Go to war with russia over syria anyway
It turns out Donald Trump can't both be tougher and more feared than Obama, but also more reserved and America-first than Obama. It was a tall order, and maybe a great man could have made it work, or perhaps a great vision.
Donald Trump has no experience in government and no vision, and thus his administration is a kitchen sink with little coherence. So of course he'll end up doing the thing that basically everyone in government wanted him to do.
Ooooooh... right... people hate politicians and want politicians who are not politicians.
Donald Trump though is like a parody of the result of that mentality... but here we are.
Now here Neo, you've hit the nail on the head.
That would require a psyker on the level of the god emperor of mankind at this point.
And honestly, all things considered, me thinks it was about time the US threw its weight around on the issue. Assad pretty much bent Obama's red line over and fucked it sideways with zero consequences since, and I'm not sure anyone can say that Russia-US relations weren't already touchy on the issue. Its a dangerous step, but I can't shake off the air that this situation is mostly a result of years of previous inaction on the involved parties, mainly the US.
Now here's a devil's advocate view from a hawk: Obama made a comment, "it's a red line". It was based on basically nothing but the idea the president says stuff. he didn't sign a rule saying he'd do it, he gave his word. Then, Assad pushed him on this. SO then Obama was going to go to war (after seeking approval, which drove Congress up the wall), and then bomb syria. but then he gets an agreement with Putin in which the chemical weapons (or at least some of them) are removed from the country, which is something that airstrikes literally could not have achieved on their own. So for having made a comment once (the sort of empty threat we hear so often in geopolitcs, particular regardin human rights), he gets to remove (some) chemical weapons from the area, and can go back to thinking about not-Syria. Blessed be the peacemakers.
When phrased like that, it sounds like a pretty sweet deal. Obama gets something for nothing.
People seem to have forgotten that Assad was the lesser of the two evils (the worse one, being of course, ISIS) But he is still terrible. Given the information, I think this was a good strike, but in hindsight, we will see.
And honestly, all things considered, me thinks it was about time the US threw its weight around on the issue. Its a dangerous step, but I can't shake off the air that this situation is mostly a result of years of previous inaction on the involved parties, mainly the US.
Honestly, people seem to approve of the missile strike. It was targeted with a purpose, it was limited, it didn't endanger any US lives. Even Syrian (and Russian) casualties were limited or avoided because they warned them of the strike beforehand. And it doesn't force the US to commit to anything further.
I get the strangest feeling that if Obama did this, it would have been seen as weak. But why? I'm trying to figure out what Obama did wrong. He hit all the right notes for dovish military intervention: reluctance, seeking approval, making his case, etc. Trump just has bombs coming down days after an incident. Is it just because, after years of non-intervention, people are now open to more decisive action? Or is it something about the decisiveness of the action, or perhaps its suddenness? Or maybe the size of the chemical attack provoked it? Maybe it's just the wisdom of hindsight, such as how everyone NOW thinks pulling out of Iraq was a bad idea, even though for a few years it was the single most popular thing Obama did.
Author
Topic: AmeriPol thread (Read 4241181 times)