Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The real question is that will it actually be possible to find a president that actually will put America first? We gain nothing by interfering in the ME. Middle Eastern Muslims have been killing each other over their silly superstitions and the culture it has spawned for 1400 years. We aren't about to change that.
Where will we find a presidential candidate that will realize that. That will stop sacrificing the lives of American servicemen and women for the sake of the people of the ME? That will say "Not our country, not our problem". That will quit sacrificing American lives and money for the sake of anyone BUT Americans?
I had hopes with Trump. He started out well with efforts to protect America. Stop the import of terrorists from specific countries. Control our borders and address our criminal alien problem. Strengthening our economy and implementing policies that allow for the creation of jobs in America (or at least reducing the impacts of actions from previous administrations that hurt that).
But now, he attacks the government of an independent country. An action that is liable to draw us back into the "regime change" game. And cost the lives of even more young Americans for the sake of trying to help people that all too often won't help themselves and enables the expansion of Islamic theocracies.
The real question is that will it actually be possible to find a president that actually will put America first? We gain nothing by interfering in the ME. Middle Eastern Muslims have been killing each other over their silly superstitions and the culture it has spawned for 1400 years. We aren't about to change that.
Where will we find a presidential candidate that will realize that. That will stop sacrificing the lives of American servicemen and women for the sake of the people of the ME? That will say "Not our country, not our problem". That will quit sacrificing American lives and money for the sake of anyone BUT Americans?
I had hopes with Trump. He started out well with efforts to protect America. Stop the import of terrorists from specific countries. Control our borders and address our criminal alien problem. Strengthening our economy and implementing policies that allow for the creation of jobs in America (or at least reducing the impacts of actions from previous administrations that hurt that).
But now, he attacks the government of an independent country. An action that is liable to draw us back into the "regime change" game. And cost the lives of even more young Americans for the sake of trying to help people that all too often won't help themselves and enables the expansion of Islamic theocracies.
How do these actions help the American people?
Excellent post.
However I think Trump's shot was really aimed at North Korea, not Syria. There we have vital interests.
You constantly contradict yourself. The fact that Trump didn't obliterate that Air Base, and he could have easily ordered it, speaks to the focus on being the WMDs. You can't have it both ways. If Assad wants to fight a war with is own citizens, that is their concern. He just can't use WMDs to do so.
Yes he did. He bombed the hell out of the same people who suffered the chemical attack yesterday killing 18 people. Not to mention they used the same airport that Trump had bombed. Your refusal to acknowledge this shows how hyper partisan you really are.
Obama requested authority to use force in Syria. Republicans in Congress told him no and threatened to impeach him. The lack of action in Syria is the fault of Republicans, not Obama.
We don't know.
But if some "refugee" ever turned loose a canister of sarin gas in NYC, your question would be different.
No one is going to protect America, but America. Sarin is banned under international law.
In 1997, the Chemical Weapons Convention extended the ban, "prohibiting the development, production, stockpiling, transfer, and use of chemical weapons, called for the elimination of existing stocks, and established an intrusive verification regime." Sarin and Chemical Weapons - Council on Foreign Relations
There is no one in the world to enforce the law but America.
Trump did the right thing. Now, the media can't get enough of asking, "What are we going to do now" and "What is the plan", and "What is the strategy" and so forth.
It's all nonsense. We don't need to do anything, and we probably won't. Let Russia and Syria spend billions of dollars in air defense if they like. As long as no one uses gas again they will be fine. I expect they will not use it again, and further, I expect if they do the price will be 10 times what they paid this time. At least I hope so.
Honey, this was the Washington Times. Grain of salt.
Those were strikes against ISIS which Congress was clearly behind.
This was an attack against Syrian government forces. Whole new can of worms.
In any case, it makes no difference what happened last year, ten years ago, or two hundred years ago.
Not sure why living in the past is so comforting to some.
The concern is now do we stand by an let Trump launch missiles at whoever his heart is set on next?
Seems some people will agree with or disagree with the same decisions made, based on what party they belong to.
Personally, I can't stand either party.....so I choose to look at actual facts and base my opinion on them. Should President Trump get us into an occupying ground war, I will be the first one to condemn it. However, had President Obama actually backed up his red line threat with an appropriate air strike, I would have supported that. Seems like President Trump simply completed what President Obama promised to do.
He got us involved in a war less than 90 days after his inauguration. That's even faster than I expected from him. And he's STILL going to Mar-a-Lago this weekend. He can't skip his mini vacation after all
And he just ordered a carrier task force en route to Australia to reverse course and take up a station off the North Korean coast....where last week he has threatened military action as well.
Seems some people will agree with or disagree with the same decisions made, based on what party they belong to.
Personally, I can't stand either party.....so I choose to look at actual facts and base my opinion on them. Should President Trump get us into an occupying ground war, I will be the first one to condemn it. However, had President Obama actually back up his red line threat with an appropriate air strike, I would have supported that. Seems like President Trump simply completed what President Obama promised to do.
Nope. You cannot blame this on Obama. The Republicans in Congress voted no.
Apparently, the facts cannot be posted often enough.
Obama moved forward with diplomacy, getting Russia to vouch for their chemical weapons, etc. Did what was possible.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
