President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

Billy86

Just another reminder about non-interventionist, pro-isolationist Trump that's been brought up over and over for more than a year.

El_Duderino 09

Fr Tod Umptious wrote:

I don't know nor care, I think the notion of Trump being a hypocrite was established well before this.

Thank goodness he's president.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote:

My point I that the Obama administration was weak on foregin policy and now with a new president that is changing.

Strong on foreign policy that distracts from scandals at home. Are you considering that to be good foreign policy?

Harika

Leroy42 wrote: »

As I said in an earlier post, if Trump and US, as well as the rest of the world, actually took this seriously and started to deal with the refugees in a proper manner. Create 'safe-spaces' within Syria. No Fly Zones, protected by a UN force, which would allow refugees to move back to Syria. Provide housing, and education, and water and food. Almost create a new Syria.

But that's what Killary suggested and that will start World War 3. :rolleyes:

Reading through the FOX comments gives me always headaches how the Trump supporters justify anything that he does as Messias like. "That's what a true leader does"
As you said, he bombed an airfield, destroyed some planes and killed some people there. And what will be achieved? Nothing as there are more airfields, more planes and more soldiers that will continue the fight.
There is no plan forward, so Russia and Syria will now use this to their own advantage to boost propaganda.

Christy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

OK, on the approval, you could be right. I haven't heard that he did but then I didn't read that he didn't either but I jumped to a conclusion on that. I edited my post to ask the question rather than state a fact.

It's not the attack that I have a problem with. I think that Assad has been allowed to get away for far too much for far too long. The west has turned a blind eye to this for too long.

On the other hand, anytime they try to get involved they tend to make things worse. I am of the opinion that US, at times, does actually try to do the right thing. Going after Assad after a chemical attack is 'right' in my view. However, this is not that.

This is nothing more that a dick waving exercise. A few runways, possibly a few planes.

As I said in an earlier post, if Trump and US, as well as the rest of the world, actually took this seriously and started to deal with the refugees in a proper manner. Create 'safe-spaces' within Syria. No Fly Zones, protected by a UN force, which would allow refugees to move back to Syria. Provide housing, and education, and water and food. Almost create a new Syria.

Sure Assad would keep the main city, but let him have it, he won't be going anywhere and what is the point of a kingdom without subjects?

If Trump starts to move down that path then this is the first step then well done. If all it is is a way to 'prove' he is better than Obama then all he did was waste a load of money and kill some people.

Ok. Having issue with links. It is on bbc. UK was informed about it and gave it their support. No mention of asking permission, more they were told about it. Similarly NATO were informed but I don't know of any response there.

I am unsure if this new Syria would work long term but might save lives short term. Similarly for the no fly zone.

You could well be right. I hope this is the end of military action and the start of the us helping out in aid/safe zones agreed with Russia and the international community. China agrees with you that this is a simple statement by Trump tired of people not listening to him and that it was done too quickly.

I am largely unsure of whst needs to be done long term and thankful I am not responsible.

El_Duderino 09

Leroy42 wrote:

It a mess. Trump is quickly finding out the these things are never simple. If it was simple that people would have solved it years ago. Obama didn't fail to act because he was a coward, it is because their is more than just one issue at stake and normally many competing issues.

The most simple calculation of all is that his opinion poll numbers will climb as a result of this. Then 2 things will happen, one is that is that we'll see a lot more bombings and the other is Trump will start talking about the importance of opinion polls and how his popularity is o important.

Wait until the day his popularity hits 50% and he and fox news will do cartwheels (as if 50% was the magic number , above which all criticism is moot)

ThisRegard

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

There hasn't even been time to properly verify who exactly carried out the chemical attack.

Nobody outside of the intelligence agencies and certain committees will know this. They seem pretty certain they know exactly the airbase it came from, it was hardly rebel aircraft in that case.

Leroy42

Billy86 wrote: »

Just another reminder about non-interventionist, pro-isolationist Trump that's been brought up over and over for more than a year.

But that only serves to highlight the real nature of Trump. He is whatever people think he is.

He is America First. To some that means isolationist, to others that means he will do whatever suits America.

To some he is against military action, whilst at the same time increasing spending on the military.

On one hand he espouses dialogue with Russia, getting a deal done. On the other hand he is massively cutting the Department of State budget and reducing the diplomatic core.

Whatever position you agree with, he has probably, at one time or another, held that position. His latest position is just that. The latest position.

He spent years demanding Obama stay out of Syria, and with 80 days of being President he has launched missiles into the country.

Whilst there are many politicians that I don't agree with, I can at least respect that they have a position and are willing to stand behind it. The real danger with Trump is not what he says, it that he doesn't even believe what he says and is liable to do anything.

He is like a lucky dip, except with nuclear weapons

Jan_de_Bakker

worrying times ..

demfad

Leroy42 wrote: »

He is America First.

No. He is Trump first.

StringerBell

I see this bombing as a pretty pointless example of political bait and switch between Trump and Putin.

The heat is on Trump and his administrations links to Russia, to me this was seen as a good diversion tactic between them to create the illusion they are in fact at loggerheads rather then very close. They told Russian intelligence where they were going to hit, are you telling me they thought the Russians would not pass that information along to the Syrian Army who they support?

Trump wants to look strong, raise his approval rating, publicly put some distance between himself and Russia. Here he got the chance to try do that while actually causing very little damage overall.

Leroy42

StringerBell wrote: »

I see this bombing as a pretty pointless example of political bait and switch between Trump and Putin.

The heat is on Trump and his administrations links to Russia, to me this was seen as a good diversion tactic between them to create the illusion they are in fact at loggerheads rather then very close. They told Russian intelligence where they were going to hit, are you telling me they thought the Russians would not pass that information along to the Syrian Army who they support?

Trump wants to look strong, raise his approval rating, publicly put some distance between himself and Russia. Here he got the chance to try do that while actually causing very little damage overall.

And turn the attention away from his conversation with China and the issue with NK

robinph

I wouldn't read too much into Russia being warned before the attack as proof of anything. That is just what you do between a fellow nuclear power who might get caught up in the cross fire as you launch an attack on a third party so that you don't end up escalating things even more between the nuclear powers. If Russia told Syria or not doesn't really matter.

aloyisious

I was surprised by this. I reckon Vlad was too. It's a global signal. China will probably ensure Korea understands clearly the message, and not choose to misinterpret its seriousness. Iran too.

I hope the US ships are at a safe distance from attack by interested parties through "revolutionary methods".

Fox breaking news item mentioned two airfields and their weapons stores were struck.

The Russian storyline that the chemical explosions in the town attacked by Syrian forces were from locally produced stock was silly, along with the Syrian regime atory that it doesn't have chemical weapons, so couldn't have caused the fatalities and injuries in the town it admitted bombing. The Russians would need people on site to verify it first.

Leroy42

aloyisious wrote: »

I was surprised by this. I reckon Vlad was too. It's a global signal. China will probably ensure Korea understands clearly the message, and not choose to misinterpret its seriousness. Iran too.

What message do you think it sends?

Hande hoche!

robinph wrote: »

I wouldn't read too much into Russia being warned before the attack as proof of anything. That is just what you do between a fellow nuclear power who might get caught up in the cross fire as you launch an attack on a third party so that you don't end up escalating things even more between the nuclear powers. If Russia told Syria or not doesn't really matter.

Yeah it seems to be a reasonable precaution. The Americans for instance were warned prior to the Russian air force's intervention in Syria.

Enzokk

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

So Trump is carrying out Obama's ultimatium about Assad crossing the red line.

Just goes to show how much of a fraud Obama was.

That fraud Obama who wanted to wait for Congress and the UK to approve the bombings in Syria in 2013. If anything this is a consequence of the Labour party flexing their muscles in 2013 and voting against the bombing campaign.

Also, its okay to bomb people but not accept them as refugees? I believe Trump will face a harsh awakening as more atrocities comes across his desk. Obama looked very old by the end of his term and I think a lot of it has to do with seeing images of suffering that he needs to decide what action to take.

I fear Donald will act emotionally every time and this is not good for world peace.

Water John

I think its signal to the Chinese sitting at the table ATM should not be underestimated.

It may have been the correct response. What is worrying is Trump's volte face.
That makes all things unstable. Then that may very well suit his style, but its not good in a political leader.

donaghs

Leroy42 wrote: »

OK, on the approval, you could be right. I haven't heard that he did but then I didn't read that he didn't either but I jumped to a conclusion on that. I edited my post to ask the question rather than state a fact.

It's not the attack that I have a problem with. I think that Assad has been allowed to get away for far too much for far too long. The west has turned a blind eye to this for too long.

On the other hand, anytime they try to get involved they tend to make things worse. I am of the opinion that US, at times, does actually try to do the right thing. Going after Assad after a chemical attack is 'right' in my view. However, this is not that.

This is nothing more that a dick waving exercise. A few runways, possibly a few planes.

As I said in an earlier post, if Trump and US, as well as the rest of the world, actually took this seriously and started to deal with the refugees in a proper manner. Create 'safe-spaces' within Syria. No Fly Zones, protected by a UN force, which would allow refugees to move back to Syria. Provide housing, and education, and water and food. Almost create a new Syria.

Sure Assad would keep the main city, but let him have it, he won't be going anywhere and what is the point of a kingdom without subjects?

If Trump starts to move down that path then this is the first step then well done. If all it is is a way to 'prove' he is better than Obama then all he did was waste a load of money and kill some people.

If you leave aside the fact that it was Trump who ordered this, it is perhaps a good thing to show Assad that the world is serious about poison gas not being acceptable weapon of war - especially when its victims are civilians.
However, is it definitive yet that the Assad government did this? From my reading I'd say probably, but its not entirely clear yet. A lot of the evidence so far seems to be coming from Turkey: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/world/middleeast/chemical-attack-syria.html

Remember the last time Assad was supposed to have crossed the "red line", and everyone was clamoring for US intervention? Seymour Hersh and some Turkish opposition politicians were able to point out culpability on the "rebel" side, but the consensus was less interested in this.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/09/seymour-hersh-syria-washington-post_n_4413228.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/23/hersh-vindicated-turkish-whistleblowers-corroborate-story-on-false-flag-sarin-attack-in-syria/

Here's a much more balanced account of what's happened so far in the German media: http://www.dw.com/en/is-assad-to-blame-for-the-chemical-weapons-attack-in-syria/a-38330217

So, if you lived in Syria, honestly what would you prefer to happen? Unless belong to a Sunni faction, I suspect you'd really want Assad to win and bring things back to a situation closer to pre-2011. That's if you actually lived there, not just another remote commenter like myself.

What would you like the happen? How would UN safe spaces co-exist with Assad government areas? What would IS or the Rebels (e.g. Al Nusra-Al Queda) do if this happened? A no-fly zone would certainly remove a Syrian government advantage - that would even the odds, make it even more of a prolonged see-saw war. Perhaps, if Turkey the Saudis and the Gulf states saw a tipping point they'd pour even more resources into the likes of Al-Nusra and then there would be slow grinding "rebel" victory?

And even if that eventually happened? Could everyone go home and live in some new tolerant democratic Syria?

Igotadose

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

What's the end game here? Get rid of Assad and let ISIS fill in as the dominant power in the country?

Get Trump reelected.

donaghs

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

This is a really bad development for regional and world security. Russia being on the ground there gives this situation way too high of a chance of getting really out of control.

There hasn't even been time to properly verify who exactly carried out the chemical attack.

There is no reason to believe the Americans launching missiles into this conflict will result in less casualties in Syria in the future. The US using their military power in the Middle East has only ever led to making the place more dangerous and more out of control.

What's the end game here? Get rid of Assad and let ISIS fill in as the dominant power in the country?

Careful now! You're asking a lot of sensible question people don't want to hear!

I'd say IS are finished, they've enemies on all sides (Assad, rebels, Iraq gov, us, Russia, kurds, even turkey now). The Shia factions are rampant in most of Iraq now. In Syria Sunni Al-Queda-type groups dominate the rebels and are best poised to benefit from a weakened government.

El_Duderino 09

donaghs wrote:

I'd say IS are finished, they've enemies on all sides (Assad, rebels, Iraq gov, us, Russia, kurds, even turkey now). The Shia factions are rampant in most of Iraq now. In Syria Sunni Al-Queda-type groups dominate the rebels and are best poised to benefit from a weakened government.

So what takes control of the region once Isis and Assad are gone?

donaghs

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So what takes control of the region once Isis and Assad are gone?

I didn't think I'd have to spell it out, but IMHO if it didnt turn into Libya, and someone actually won, the most likely course of events would would be a Sunni rebel faction supported by a Saudi-Turkey/Erdogan consensus. Best of luck to any minority groups or free thinkers.

Enzokk

Water John wrote: »

I think its signal to the Chinese sitting at the table ATM should not be underestimated.

It may have been the correct response. What is worrying is Trump's volte face.
That makes all things unstable. Then that may very well suit his style, but its not good in a political leader.

I don't think so, I think this is Trump reacting emotionally to the pictures and images and intelligence reports he will have received. That's why his press conference had him refer to the beautiful babies twice. He was probably shocked by the actions of Assad, the same as Obama would have been since 2013.

El_Duderino 09

Enzokk wrote:

I don't think so, I think this is Trump reacting emotionally to the pictures and images and intelligence reports he will have received. That's why his press conference had him refer to the beautiful babies twice. He was probably shocked by the actions of Assad, the same as Obama would have been since 2013.

That's thinking like a normal person. Trump isn't concerned by the likkle bay-bees for God sake. For all the duplicitous sides of himself, none of them are sensitive and caring about people he hasnt even met. I think it takes a fair amount of wishful thinking to believe that trump was so genuinely moved by pictures dead children that he couldn't control his emotions and decided to create more dead adults. It takes even ore wishful thinking to believe that trump being so beholden to his emotions that he would rush into conflict, to be a good thing!

Wanderer78

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's thinking like a normal person. Trump isn't concerned by the likkle bay-bees for God sake. For all the duplicitous sides of himself, none of them are sensitive and caring about people he hasnt even met. I think it takes a fair amount of wishful thinking to believe that trump was so genuinely moved by pictures dead children that he couldn't control his emotions and decided to create more dead adults. It takes even ore wishful thinking to believe that trump being so beholden to his emotions that he would rush into conflict, to be a good thing!

shut up will ya, feck sake, its 'democracy'! jebus! :rolleyes:

aloyisious

Meantime the "unmasking" continues. Nice buzzword for revealing sources or leakers......

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/04/06/the-government-is-demanding-to-know-who-this-trump-critic-is-twitter-is-suing-to-keep-it-a-secret/

RobertKK

I still think it was a really bad idea to hit Syria.
So far a measured attack as it was very limited, but there is room for all this to go very badly wrong.
Still better than the alternative as ImWithHer said all of Assad's air bases should be targeted.
Madness none the less.

Playing with Syria is playing with fire, with petrol barrels getting heated up...

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

ThisRegard wrote: »

Nobody outside of the intelligence agencies and certain committees will know this. They seem pretty certain they know exactly the airbase it came from, it was hardly rebel aircraft in that case.

The US intelligence community has zero credibility on anything. They have proven to be perpetual liars and war hungry.

How can anybody take anything they say at face value?

El_Duderino 09

RobertKK wrote:

Still better than the alternative as ImWithHer said all of Assad's air bases should be targeted. Madness none the less.

Hillary isn't an alternative. Trump won the election so these side swipes at Hillary as a means to minimise trump's mistakes, are irrelevant

ScumLord

donaghs wrote: »

So, if you lived in Syria, honestly what would you prefer to happen? Unless belong to a Sunni faction, I suspect you'd really want Assad to win and bring things back to a situation closer to pre-2011. That's if you actually lived there, not just another remote commenter like myself.

After seeing that gas attack, if I was syrian I'd take my chances trying to get into Europe. There's not going to be any quick resolution to this.