Disgusted with Trump administration - Part I

• gut

  O-Trap;1846316 wrote: That about as close to playing politics with lives as it gets.

  You do realize Assad gassed 100 people, including dozens of childrens, with chemical weapons he wasn't supposed to have?
• SportsAndLady

  

  Yeah not sure how you can possibly be against these bombings. I mean, I get some people don't want the US involved in wars against countries that are essentially no threat to the US, but when we tell a country's evil leader not to use chemical warfare or we'll bomb you...and then he does it...well, we have no choice.
• O-Trap

  

  gut;1846317 wrote:You do realize Assad gassed 100 people, including dozens of childrens, with chemical weapons he wasn't supposed to have?

  Of course I do, and I remember hearing the statement that we got "100%" of them out of there, so it's fairly obvious he wasn't supposed to have them.
  
  However, Myanmar/Burma has been just as brutal to many in its citizenry for decades, and it's murdered far more than 100 people. The active oppression of Mugabe on the people of Zimbabwe has resulted in far more deaths, as well. The adoption of Wahabbism by the Saudi leadership has resulting in a pretty brutal brand of oppression, not to mention sympathies toward certain radical groups ... but we've been rather friendly with them, have we not? And let's not get into the history of executions of citizens without due process in North Korea.
  
  My point isn't to suggest that Assad isn't such a bad guy. My point is that we didn't suddenly get a bleeding heart. We didn't choose Syria because Assad is especially bad among despots. He makes a convenient enemy, and anyone who perceives himself as a hero needs a good enemy (see a good portion of Trump's political activity -- other Republicans, the "fake news" media, Obama, HC, etc.).
  

  SportsAndLady;1846318 wrote:Yeah not sure how you can possibly be against these bombings. I mean, I get some people don't want the US involved in wars against countries that are essentially no threat to the US, but when we tell a country's evil leader not to use chemical warfare or we'll bomb you...and then he does it...well, we have no choice.

  Well, we do. We could, you know, not bomb them, since they're not attacking the US (and, thus, our actions wouldn't fall under even the broadest definition of national "defense"). Still not as good as NOT saying we would in the first place, but someone thought it was a good idea to sail that ship.
  
  Nobody's saying Assad is alright. He's the definition of a despot, and I don't mourn anything he loses in the mess. Even feeling a little sadistic about what he might lose, but that still doesn't mean I think we should be involved. That's not the purpose of a national defense.
  
  Frankly, I'm a little curious as to why Assad would have done this. Has there been some accusation he brought against the people he killed?
  
  The US has no business being in Syria to begin with, whether openly, or by covertly supplying training, money, weapons, etc. to "terrorist" mercenary proxies.
  
  There is one allowance for waging war by the Federal government, and that requirement has not been met since WWII.
  
  Trump seemed to oppose this sort of thing when someone else was in office, and it isn't as though we didn't hear about how bad a villain it was that made us do it then, either:
  
  
  Over the last several decades (at least as far back as Desert Storm, which is as far back as I can remember, being 33), anytime the US demonstrated interest in military conflict, they ALWAYS gave us a villain.
  
  We went into Iraq (both times) because Hussein was EVERY bit as bad as Assad (if we're talking crimes against his own citizens, Hussein had a higher body count, I believe). We dropped bombs in Syria over the last several years before Trump took office because ISIS was there, and ISIS was a group of murdering oppressors.
  
  Now, I'm certainly not suggesting that any of these examples are NOT, in fact, villains. They're terrible. Hussein, Assad, and ISIS are/were all oppressive, violent, and murderous. Assad is bad, but he's not demonstrably "worse" than any of the other villains we've suddenly had the itch to go after, nor is he necessarily worse than some of the ones we've never gone after.
  
  What of North Korea? Zimbabwe? Myanmar/Burma? Saudi Arabia? They've all been oppressing and killing their citizens for years and/or decades. We've just never felt the need to scratch that itch.
  
  If we're doing this because we're trying to bring freedom to an oppressed and victimized people, we certainly do seem to have an awfully convenient conscience when it comes to target and timing.
• fish82

  

  Pretty bummed with POTUS for this...and disappointed that we're already back to fucking around in the ME, simply because we saw some pictures that made us sad.
• Automatik

  

  fish82;1846327 wrote:Pretty bummed with POTUS for this...and disappointed that we're already back to fucking around in the ME, simply because we saw some pictures that made us sad.

  Yeah, "pictures that made us sad", that's it. You're a moron.
• fish82

  

  Automatik;1846330 wrote:Yeah, "pictures that made us sad", that's it. You're a moron.

  I guess. Enjoy your war.
• Con_Alma

  We have some 1000 troops on the ground working with Iraqi force preparing to overtake a the ISIS capital. We were launching those missiles no matter what to begin the process of making sure that no more chemical weapons usage will be tolerated. We have an obligation to enforce signed agreements of this nature and protect our troops from potential threats of such chemical warfare usage.
• superman

  Con_Alma;1846332 wrote:We have some 1000 troops on the ground working with Iraqi force preparing to overtake a the ISIS capital. We were launching those missiles no matter what to begin the process of making sure that no more chemical weapons usage will be tolerated. We have an obligation to enforce signed agreements of this nature and protect our troops from potential threats of such chemical warfare usage.

  If Assad actually chemical weapons.
  
  Which we have no proof of.
• like_that

  

  I hated when we droned them, and I hate this move. I really don't see much of a difference between the two. Both will create refugees. I really wish we could stop trying to be the world police. Sick of it and a waste of money. There must be some eye opening intel during those top secret briefings, because it seems to be very convincing for every president we have.
• Crimson streak

  

  like_that;1846340 wrote:I hated when we droned them, and I hate this move. I really don't see much of a difference between the two. Both will create refugees. I really wish we could stop trying to be the world police. Sick of it and a waste of money. There must be some eye opening intel during those top secret briefings, because it seems to be very convincing for every president we have.

  This was an isolated attack on an air base with very few casualties. How does the create refugees? It needed to be done and was a message sent to Assad that using chemical warfare won't be tolerated. If he continues to use them then he won't have any air bases left.
  
  
  Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
• Spock

  

  O-Trap;1846316 wrote:Bombing like this is taking lives and driving fresh blood into terrorist organizations. It's the creation, or revival, of an enemy.
  
  That about as close to playing politics with lives as it gets.

  huh? We bombed a paved military airport. Do Syrians pitch tents on the tarmac?
  
  If anyone died in this, it was Russian or Syrian military.
• QuakerOats

  gut;1846277 wrote:There's no way Ginsburg is hanging on another 4 years. Trump could end-up replacing 3 liberal justices. Applications for Canadian citizenship will spike....

  
  The Latino-phobia among liberals is amazing.
• Heretic

  

  QuakerOats;1846232 wrote:MAGA: the phenomenon that always occurs after 8 years of liberal rule.
  
  
  God bless

  You mean like how Obama happened after 8 years of conservative rule? News flash: Whenever one party has control for a certain amount of time, the other party always regains control. Because when you have two parties that suck, the grass is ALWAYS greener on the other side of the fence.
• QuakerOats

  I appreciate real messages, not fake talk. Hopefully a lot of people are taking notice.
• Heretic

  

  fish82;1846327 wrote:Pretty bummed with POTUS for this...and disappointed that we're already back to fucking around in the ME, simply because we saw some pictures that made us sad.

  Well, any time you get a chance to take out one of the secular leaders in the ME in order to create a power vacuum that really drives up terrorist recruitment, you have to take it!
• fish82

  

  Heretic;1846364 wrote:Well, any time you get a chance to take out one of the secular leaders in the ME in order to create a power vacuum that really drives up terrorist recruitment, you have to take it!

  LOL...so it would seem.
• BoatShoes

  like_that;1846282 wrote:lol, what makes you think this?

  She's already battled pancreatic cancer at least once (twice?)...
  
  The grim reaper is knocking.
• BoatShoes

  gut;1846283 wrote:She's 83, had cancer twice and heart problems.

  Beat me to it.
• BoatShoes

  Spock;1846296 wrote:About time we have a potus with some testicals

  An informative post as to how small government minded folks cheer wildly when their guy consolidates power.
• BoatShoes

  With the failure of the healthcare bill, the demotion of Bannon, the bombing of Syria (Trump Nationalists oppose this)...do we have a coup by the globalist wall street dems in the west wing in Kohn, Kushner, Ivanka and Powell (as some in talk radio are starting to speculate about?)
• gut

  O-Trap;1846320 wrote:My point is that we didn't suddenly get a bleeding heart.

  No, we didn't. But Assad was clearly suddenly violating a treaty. If you're not willing to enforce your own agreements, then they are worthless.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Something like less than 10 people killed?
• majorspark

  

  superman;1846338 wrote:Which we have no proof of.

  We more than likely have proof most of which is under some level of classification. The use of chemical weapons should not be tolerated. That said it does not appear there was any immediate threat to US personnel or interests the president should not have acted without Congressional approval.
• majorspark

  

  Thankfully Obama made a deal with the Russians to get rid of chemical weapons in Syria.
• majorspark

  

  And don't worry Iran will not get nuclear weapons either.