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.
It doesn't matter what Trump does. The haters will criticize regardless. They have been non-stop critical ever since his announcement to run for president and they won't stop even after he leaves office eight years from now.
I think what people are pointing out is the hypocrisy. Trump ridiculed that idea of striking at Assad when Hillary suggested it. He was also against launching the same kind of attack against Libya, which Obama did. Gingrich favored an attack against Libya -- except when Obama did it, he was against it.
For all those praising this action, Obama requested authority from Congress to take action and they sat on their hands.
I don't know the numbers. There's more to it than numbers and civilians dead. Chemical warfare can not be made "normal" by Assad or any other country. That is the point of the airstrikes. The strikes are a deterrent for this happening again. Assad or any other rogue leader now knows there are consequences and the U.S. will not sit back and allow it to happen.
Re: bold: hope you're right but frankly, we as peoples have normalized warfare full stop. & normalized torture. & normalized aggression in all forms. ...
Twitter chatter this morning that the most vocal opposition to Trump's decision seems to be coming from his own party & media (Briebart is apparently not thrilled with the USA attacks).
But for me -- listening to Good Morning America this morning and reading online, because the attacks were very specific, it seems they have the general consensus that it was the right thing to do.
I hope it was.
I still am bothered by the constant reference to 'if Obama had done the right thing". Hindsight is 20/20.....at the time Obama was weighing his options there was almost no support for any kind of attack. The opposition was emphatic there be no action, especially without Congress approval (which Obama could not have gotten). Because he conceded to this general opposition...they are now 'blaming' indirectly him for the gas attack this week.
That's just partisan politics and its worst.
The USA is not responsible at any level for the gas attacks.
There are 1000 US troops in Syria -- hope they will be okay. I'm sure they are on high alert -- the US military is not reckless -- I hope......
Lots of hoping and praying ......
Here in the UK politicians from all sides have supported the action, and in the US Trump seems to have pleased some of his traditional opponents. His measured response so far has clearly impressed a lot of people, even if it has alienated some of his core support.
Doesnt need approval. Executive powers, fully authorized..
How views change when the political parties switch in the White House. Republicans condemned Obama for launching the same type of cruise missiles into Libya. Now they praise #45 for taking unilateral action.
It doesn't matter what Trump does. The haters will criticize regardless. They have been non-stop critical ever since his announcement to run for president and they won't stop even after he leaves office eight years from now.
I'm a Trump detractor. I'm not sure how I feel about this move. I don't think we can turn a blind eye to what is going on in Syria - especially since we had a hand in its destabilization. But I don't know if this was the right move. I do see a lot of hypocrisy on both sides from those who were so hard on Obama for his lack of action.
Although this is an interesting article from 2013:
We've always been the world's policeman. At least it seems like it. Not that it's right but that's how it's been.
I see both sides to this but keep in mind that if there had been a country that acted as the world police about 70 years ago, WWII would not have happened. Hitler would have been stopped before he had invaded Poland and app 60 million people would not have perished. Sometimes you have to look at the big picture, not just your own back yard.
How views change when the political parties switch in the White House. Republicans condemned Obama for launching the same type of cruise missiles into Libya. Now they praise #45 for taking unilateral action.
Well, in all fairness, that was a different country with, possibly, a different situation and a different motivation (not going to bother to research it).
Saying situations are the same just because the same kind of missile is used is not really rational.
Why, it's almost like saying the Russian cruise missile launch of a while back is the same situation just because those missiles were launched from their ships at night.
Some members of Congress disagree and say he should have gone to them. Apparently no one knew until after the strike.
What I find interesting is that the same Republican senators who said Obama shouldn't act in 2013 are now praising trump for the same exact action in 2017.
I don't necessarily have an issue with the action, but more with the timing and motivation. This was an awfully quick 180.
If trump starts taking in Syrian refugees, I'll reconsider. But this looks to me like a welcome distraction from Russiagate for him. I don't buy that he was suddenly so moved by the pictures of dying children.
Excellent post and I completely agree. I'm conflicted about this strike. Part of me thinks he was so insulated from the real world before taking office that those images and videos may very well have knocked some sense into him. Only time will tell.
The whole "chemical attack" issue looked fishy. Assad had retaken about the 70% of land ISIS once ruled in Syria, he defeated terrorists in Aleppo and now what good was he going to obtain from gassing a rebel stronghold? This smells rotten.
Assad should be left on his own when it comes to dealing with the Islamic scumbags.
Assad's regime was the most "liberal" and secular state amidst the fundamentalist countries in the Middle East. A girlfriend of mine studied there for 6 months in 2007, she has fond memories from that time, it was a modern country where yihadists had no chance to spread their twisted vision of Islam. Hell, even Assad is not a Muslim according to Islamic scholars. The Christian population in Syria overwhelmingly supports the Regime, which provided freedom of speech and religion for all Syrian citzens
Such a shame.
^^^^this. Obama's constant attacks on Assad made a degree of sense if you follow look at his actions in other areas. His arming of terrorist groups and enabling of them was consistent with his actions to strengthen Islamic extremism everywhere. Attacking Assad's government creates a power vacuum for Islamic extremists to fill, just like the entire "Arab Spring" did.
With Trump...the question is WHY? Why is he continuing these same policies and actions? This is little different than Obama's actions in Libya that turned that country into a hellhole, and little different than Bush with Iraq. Just why do we feel the need to attack Middle East leaders, just because they don't fit our model of "nice" people? They are doing what they need to to address the culture of the region.
And why do we have leaders willing to sacrifice American lives for the people of the ME? What happened to putting America first.
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.
