I hope these fucking morons don’t make everything worse.
Doing nothing would have been the worse of two options.
Trump drew a red line, so he had to defend it.
Seems like we would need to really pound some serious Assad targets to get him to think twice about using chemical weapons (make him lose something important), and that might take a few more days of strikes, but who knows.
This is one of the reasons I cannot be a right-winger. Right-wingers are always the ones who will advance the argument that if the president threatens force, he must use lest he make us "look weak." If I understand this rationale, I guess it means if Trump makes even more outrageous threats, we're obliged to follow through on them. That's a great idea.
I have a theory. My theory's been that regardless whom is president and regardless what he says or does, our enemies act as they wish, knowing all along our military capabilities and the chance that any president, at any time, may use it against them. This is based on my observation of various regimes across decades and across many presidencies.
....regardless of what Assad wants to do, and regardless of what he fears or doesn't fear from one US administration to the next, he can't make more chemical weapons when his facilities are destroyed.
Nevermind who replaces the bad actors we remove, of course.
I prefer that my presidents don't draw red lines in the sand unless they defend them. Leave yourself an out if you don't intend to make good on a promise. Voice it as a strong possibility, not a promise of action.
But, Trump is neither a politician nor a lawyer, and he makes no effort to parse his words. He talks like a Michigan line worker. That's why this is a problem at the international political level...but it is also why he has support at the voter level.
So, we're obligated to continue the killing because our president isn't very smart?
Odd response: Assad is attacking innocents, therefore, let's start firing missiles, which are bound to kill some more. Ah, but since we don't "intend" to kill innocents, that changes everything in a moral sense, right? This usually comes from persons who would otherwise argue that intentions should be thrown out the window.
...just kidding.
As a general principle, if we promise/threaten to take certain actions upon certain future conditions occurring, then that promise of action should only be made if we have already decided that the action promised is the proper action to take if those conditions are satisfied. The time for discretion is when you are making promises of action, not when you are delivering on your promises.
Regarding your specific points about this action: Intent and targeting matter. Type of weapon used also matters. All are factors in the moral analysis. If this action was calculated to diminish Assads ability to use chemical weapons, then it can be morally justified, even if there is collateral damage/death. Having said that such justification is possible, I'm not actually going there. Frankly, I thought we should just let the Russians help Assad regain control of his country. I didn't understand why we went there in the first place. Of course, the Left Wing would have screamed in outrage, and Frank would have made 10 more pee-pee-tape posts, if Trump decided to take an approach of strategic patience, because it would look like he was doing it for "Putie."
to measure his words?
I can't speak to Frank's pee-pee tape fixation as I don't read any of those posts. I'm waiting for his greatest hits compilation, which I will place next to my cherished Freedom Rock compilation from K-Tel.
I choose to criticize him for drawing red lines that he shouldn't draw.
Others can criticize him for honoring (or not honoring) the red lines he draws.
Thus my growing conclusion that politics should be greatly deemphasized in our lives.
(no message)
That, more than anything else, explains the enormous blunder of Vietnam.
Obama willy-nillied and it took several years before Assad broke out the Chlorine gas. Trump missiled the shit out of Assad last year and Assad just reloaded and fired.
I don't think Trump's strategy caused the second strike. I just don't think it changed Assad's plans. Which is what you are saying, I think.
I don't believe Trump changed Assad's plans.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
that sick.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
They will stay secret buds.
Remember Ned...... there was no collusion.....Trump has always been the toughest on Russia. Fools.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
The Russians spread assets into lots of Syrian bases. If we strike those, it would be a major escalation.
Trump addressing the nation is ominous.
Of course Madcow didn't mention the statements and support by Macron and Day when she brought this allegation up immediately after Trump's address to the nation.
But maybe she is on to something, eh? Do you suppose that Trump secretly gassed those Syrians and planted evidence to blame the Russians so that he could fool our allies and have his excuse to fire missiles and deflect attention?
This is how insane you guys are at this point. Walk away.
I have to change the channel.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)