Looks like Assad used some more chemicals attacks on his own people. Killed a lot of civilians, including children. So how does the White House respond? Blame it on Obama because he didn't stand up to Assad. Of course, that really is no excuse, considering that another one happened under Trump's watch, and the chances that Trump will do anything about it are pretty much zero, considering that their Russian buddy is an ally of Assad.

I can't stand Bashar al-Assad. Before he was (most likely) gassing his own people, I remember watching an interview a few years ago that Charlie Rose did on him. He was so full of shit and talked around the questions. He basically even said that he has the right to use chemical weapons whenever he wants or something of that nature.

I'm honestly surprised the guy hasn't been assassinated yet.

At 4/4/17 03:02 PM, EdyKel wrote: Looks like Assad used some more chemicals attacks on his own people.

Do we know for sure it was him? Genuine question.

At 4/5/17 09:25 AM, DamnedByFate wrote:

At 4/4/17 03:02 PM, EdyKel wrote: Looks like Assad used some more chemicals attacks on his own people.

Do we know for sure it was him? Genuine question.

It's pretty much a given at this point, since it was the same type of chemicals he used before. Even the White House is acknowledging it. Of course, both Assad and Russia both deny it, and they blame the rebels for it, but it's pretty unlikely they(rebels) could easily get a hold of it, much less accidentally use it on themselves. Nor do they have the military capabilities of using it - it would have to be dropped from a bomber onto a targeted area.

At 4/4/17 03:02 PM, EdyKel wrote: Looks like Assad used some more chemicals attacks on his own people. Killed a lot of civilians, including children. So how does the White House respond? Blame it on Obama because he didn't stand up to Assad. Of course, that really is no excuse, considering that another one happened under Trump's watch, and the chances that Trump will do anything about it are pretty much zero, considering that their Russian buddy is an ally of Assad.

It's not a helpful thing to say, but to put blame on the previous administration isn't incorrect. I find the outrage over Trump's words on this highly ironic, after 8 years of blaming Bush.

Imo, we should push NATO and the U.N. to step in, this is the very thing they're around for.

At 4/5/17 03:10 PM, Entice wrote:

At 4/5/17 11:43 AM, billybobthwarten wrote: It's not a helpful thing to say, but to put blame on the previous administration isn't incorrect. I find the outrage over Trump's words on this highly ironic, after 8 years of blaming Bush.

It's more the hypoctisy here. How can he blame Obama for not standing up to Assad when he has an incredibly soft stance on Assad himself?

Until Trump does or does not act, this is a bad comparison. Obama drew his red line then lounged around in his mom jeans.

The red line, and Obama's failure to act left a vacuum that the Russians were more than glad to fill. Now, we're in a tight spot and many actions could be seen as provoking Russia.

Imo, we should push NATO and the U.N. to step in, this is the very thing they're around for.

Maybe, but it's doubtful that will happen under the current administration.

We'll see, seems to me that Trump wants more action from those bodies and less American intervention.

At 4/5/17 11:43 AM, billybobthwarten wrote:

At 4/4/17 03:02 PM, EdyKel wrote: Looks like Assad used some more chemicals attacks on his own people. Killed a lot of civilians, including children. So how does the White House respond? Blame it on Obama because he didn't stand up to Assad. Of course, that really is no excuse, considering that another one happened under Trump's watch, and the chances that Trump will do anything about it are pretty much zero, considering that their Russian buddy is an ally of Assad.

It's not a helpful thing to say, but to put blame on the previous administration isn't incorrect. I find the outrage over Trump's words on this highly ironic, after 8 years of blaming Bush.

Imo, we should push NATO and the U.N. to step in, this is the very thing they're around for.

Honestly, you don't have a point at all. Your argument basically comes down to puckering up your lips to trumps ass, and validating his ego that he can shit out anything and people will still love to kiss his ass.

Son, Trump has already made it clear he has no interest in involving himself in the MiddleEast, outside of indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas to go after Muslims extremists. I mean, I'm pretty sure he made it clear that he was against the Iraq war. And he is so Friendly to Russia to the point of letting them do whatever they want over there. And just last week, Rex Tillerson, basically said that they are no longer seeking the removal of Assad, which now give him free reign to do pretty much as he pleases, and which we now see what has emboldened him to use chemical weapons again. The fact is, If you didn't like Obama's handling of Syria because he didn't act aggressive enough for you, then you can't defend someone who is going to be even less aggressive, while blaming the former for the the recent chemical attack.

You can blame Obama for a lot of things, but there were no easy solutions for him over Syria. Much of the blame for what happened there still lies under Bush, and his policies. Bush started an unnecessary war in Iraq, which dis-stabilized the region, leading to sectarian violence, and a weak government, which allowed Muslim extremists to fester and grow into ISIS in the norther portion of that country(which then spread into Syria); and also under his watch, American banks, due to the lack of oversight, and regulation, created magical accounting tricks to make credit (without assets to back it up) appear like water, which spooked the markets when discovered, leading to the financial crisis, which was felt all across the world, leading to dis-stabilization in many countries, particularly in Norther Africa and Middle Eastern countries, from the Arab Spring that rose up in them. So, this is what Obama had to face when he got into office.

There were also a few other problems that Obama faced, namely that the public was tired of wars, because they were no longer about the reasons why we went into the Middle East after 9-11, and the fact that 2 years into his first term, Republicans took control of the house and were pretty much opposed to any new wars, or authorization of aggressive actions, even against ISIS, under Obama - mostly because they wanted to make him a one term president, in order to control the White House, Senate, and further control the Supreme court (partisan politics at it's finest).

Also, after Libya, and Iraq, removing dictators by force, became pretty unpopular, given that it just leads more of a mess to clean up. So, there was not a whole lot of interest in simply removing Assad, by force, because that would just lead to more chaos in the county, especially with ISIL eying the opportunity to take over. Funding rebel groups was another problematic area, because after Afghanistan, indiscriminately funding of rebel groups could lead to weapons falling into Muslim extremists hands, and put those groups in a position of power that could bite us further in the ass - as seen with Al Queda. So force, and outright funding the opposition, in Syria, was pretty much out of the question. And pretty much, the US was alone on this on the international, outside of Sanctions. So, Obama had no real cards to play, and nothing to really back up his bet with, especially not with Russia backing up Assad and keeping him in power.

But, again, this is all moot, considering that your basically okay with being even less aggressive towards Assad, and don't really give a shit if he gasses his own people, and will continue blaming Obama for Trumps own failures.

At 4/5/17 05:52 PM, Entice wrote:

At 4/5/17 03:36 PM, billybobthwarten wrote: Until Trump does or does not act, this is a bad comparison. Obama drew his red line then lounged around in his mom jeans.

Trump has already acted by saying he won't pursue military action against Assad. Assad is apparently optimistic about it as he's referred to Trump as a "natural ally" during interviews.

I'm tried of the "wait and see" argument. Trump isn't some enigma, and his course of action on this issue is fairly obvious.

The red line, and Obama's failure to act left a vacuum that the Russians were more than glad to fill. Now, we're in a tight spot and many actions could be seen as provoking Russia.

Both of them "lounged around" on this issue. The only difference is that Trump adopted it as his official position, which is arguably worse because it will embolden Assad and Russia even more on top of the previous administration's failures.

No, the differences are that Obama was a man in power when he made a stance then went limp. With Trump, he said something before he was President, when it didn't matter. He has been stand offish early on. And now, we're maybe getting some tough talk. This does really seem to be a "wait and see", no matter how much you may not like it.

We'll see, seems to me that Trump wants more action from those bodies and less American intervention.

Right, so his stance is nonintervention.

No direct American intervention, sure. If you paid attention to his campaign, he always supported more action from world bodies and less from America.

You'll have to wait...and see, we all will.

At 4/5/17 06:06 PM, EdyKel wrote:

Honestly, you don't have a point at all. Your argument basically comes down to puckering up your lips to trumps ass, and validating his ego that he can shit out anything and people will still love to kiss his ass.

Is this what you consider civil discourse? You make a lot of assumptions and are flinging a lot of condescension, high class stuff there.

This sort of disgusting attitude is one reason why I left this site a bit ago.

You can blame Obama for a lot of things, but there were no easy solutions for him over Syria.

Obama should have bombed their runways and created no fly zones. Those 2 very small actions would have limited Assad's capabilities.

There were also a few other problems that Obama faced... mostly because they wanted to make him a one term president, in order to control the White House, Senate, and further control the Supreme court (partisan politics at it's finest).

They all acted like children, starting with the Democrats and Obama name calling and saying tough shit for 2 years straight, which lost them Congress.

Also, after Libya, and Iraq, removing dictators by force, became pretty unpopular, given that it just leads more of a mess to clean up. So, there was not a whole lot of interest in simply removing Assad, by force, because that would just lead to more chaos in the county, especially with ISIL eying the opportunity to take over. Funding rebel groups was another problematic area, because after Afghanistan, indiscriminately funding of rebel groups could lead to weapons falling into Muslim extremists hands, and put those groups in a position of power that could bite us further in the ass - as seen with Al Queda. So force, and outright funding the opposition, in Syria, was pretty much out of the question. And pretty much, the US was alone on this on the international, outside of Sanctions. So, Obama had no real cards to play, and nothing to really back up his bet with, especially not with Russia backing up Assad and keeping him in power.

Russia moved in after we did nothing, period. We did fund and arm many a "rebel group".

But, again, this is all moot, considering that your basically okay with being even less aggressive towards Assad, and don't really give a shit if he gasses his own people, and will continue blaming Obama for Trumps own failures.

You know so little but say so much.

Here are my stances, I'll fill you in, so you don't have to just make shit up and write long winded rants from a place of ignorance.

Iraq was bad, the Iraq war was a lie. I am no fan of Bush. But since those are the actions we took, Obama gladly accepting that Iraq wanted us to leave was the wrong choice. You do not destroy a country then pack up and go, we didn't do it after WWII and we shouldn't have done it there. We should never arm "rebel groups", it almost always turns out to be a lie or something that morphs into a worse group. American equipment in American hands, or we don't get involved. I want NATO and the UN to be more proactive and less to fall directly on our shoulders.

At 4/5/17 06:32 PM, billybobthwarten wrote:

You can blame Obama for a lot of things, but there were no easy solutions for him over Syria.

Obama should have bombed their runways and created no fly zones. Those 2 very small actions would have limited Assad's capabilities.

We saw how well that went over Lybia, with Republicans crying that he bypassed their consent. Second of all, it would create even more tension with Russia, who is a close ally to Assad, and would further use it as justification to escalate tension with us. We are not in WW3, yet, and Putin is looking for any excuse. Thirdly, it would not stop the bombing, because Russia supplies most of the air power there, and have their own air bases close to Syria. So, not much of an option, as it would just make things worse.

They all acted like children, starting with the Democrats and Obama name calling and saying tough shit for 2 years straight, which lost them Congress.

Son, what is wrong with you? Don't play this game with me. Both sides do it. All you are telling me is that you have double standards, and that you are okay with pettiness, in response to what someone, or some group, said about you, or your party. And that is all the justification they need to act like assholes, especially in government, when they control the fate of millions of people that they govern.

The point here is that Republicans could have acted responsible, instead of petty, and outright partisan, instead of not trying to find common ground. So, you have no argument here.

Russia moved in after we did nothing, period. We did fund and arm many a "rebel group".

We were in a weakened state after the Bush years, with very few options left to us. That is what I pointed out. We may have the biggest military presence in the world, but it's not deterring Russia... I mean Putin - who is a 2nd rate dictator that pretends to be democratically elected - who has aspirations to revive his country as a super power, and the US, under Trump, is willing conceding our power to him. That bothers me a lot.

We have a lot to lose in the world, son, that we have built up over the last 50 years( a lot of markets and a lot of trade). Russia doesn't have as much to lose, only to gain. Their biggest export is oil (aside from hackers) to Europe, and that commands a lot of power, because energy is power. And it's all being led by an aggressive dictator, who's trying to revive the glory days of the Soviet Union.

And our funding to Rebel groups has been a few cases of arms, which is no match for Russian air power, which is why Alepo is in ruins. And you are still running away from the lack of response by Trump.

You know so little but say so much.

Here are my stances, I'll fill you in, so you don't have to just make shit up and write long winded rants from a place of ignorance.

Iraq was bad, the Iraq war was a lie. I am no fan of Bush. But since those are the actions we took, Obama gladly accepting that Iraq wanted us to leave was the wrong choice. You do not destroy a country then pack up and go, we didn't do it after WWII and we shouldn't have done it there. We should never arm "rebel groups", it almost always turns out to be a lie or something that morphs into a worse group. American equipment in American hands, or we don't get involved. I want NATO and the UN to be more proactive and less to fall directly on our shoulders.

You're telling me a confusing mesh mass of hypocritical nonsense. First, you tell me that Iraq was a bad war, while blaming Obama for not keeping it going. While also telling me that the US should be more of an isolationist, with the UN being more aggressive military wise. You seem to go with popular ideas, while ignoring realities. It's why you blame Obama for the recent gas attacks, while not holding Trump's lack of response to it, or his recent policies to ignore Syria entirely

Let me clear something up for you, we were basically kicked out of Iraq by their government. Iraqis despise us (the indiscriminate bombings -which Trump is reviving - during the war killed 100,000 of thousands of civilians, destroyed their infrastructure, and were replaced by shoddy reconstruction work by no-bid contract companies close to the Bush administration, which are now falling apart. Obama didn't really have a choice. All he could do was aid them with some air support against ISIS, and train their soldiers - so we didn't abandon them entirely.

We also spend more money on our military than any other country in the world. And Trump is adding to that. It doesn't make a lick of sense for an isolationist country, who wants the UN to spend more on funding their own military, to increase defense spending on our part while wanting to reduce our military presence in the world. Tell me what I am missing.

Lastly, you continue to run away from your argument about how the current situation in Syria is going to change under Trump, and why he shouldn't be be blamed for the gas attacks there, when all he has done is talk, and shown no action to prevent it from happening again.

We need to take action against Assad. This article explains my stance.

Monkey see, monkey do.
America tortures the jihadists, autocratic nations feel they can do the same, but worse.
Turkey's Erdogan is citing the U.S. in defending restoration of the death penalty (and I expect things to get ugly).
Obama cowered when it came to Syria, so Russia took advantage. And the article above says that if Assad can get away with chemical weapon attacks, other rogue countries will follow the Syrian model and chemical warfare will be the norm. Not to mention the targeting of innocents, including making babies foam at the mouth and choke on sarin gas.

As bad and threatening as the jihadists are, I feel like ISIS and Al Qaeda are the lesser evils in these circumstances.

At 4/5/17 08:05 PM, Th-e wrote: We need to take action against Assad.

That's a game of chicken that I'm not willing to gamble innocent lives on.

At 4/5/17 07:57 PM, EdyKel wrote:

At 4/5/17 06:32 PM, billybobthwarten wrote:

You can blame Obama for a lot of things, but there were no easy solutions for him over Syria.

Obama should have bombed their runways and created no fly zones. Those 2 very small actions would have limited Assad's capabilities.

We saw how well that went over Lybia, with Republicans crying that he bypassed their consent. Second of all, it would create even more tension with Russia, who is a close ally to Assad, and would further use it as justification to escalate tension with us. We are not in WW3, yet, and Putin is looking for any excuse. Thirdly, it would not stop the bombing, because Russia supplies most of the air power there, and have their own air bases close to Syria. So, not much of an option, as it would just make things worse.

Early on, there was not a massive Russian influence, around the time the red line was drawn. We had a chance to squash it, or at least dampen things, opportunity lost.

They all acted like children, starting with the Democrats and Obama name calling and saying tough shit for 2 years straight, which lost them Congress.

Son, what is wrong with you? ....So, you have no argument here.

Opinion, like much of what you've said.

Russia moved in after we did nothing, period. We did fund and arm many a "rebel group".

And our funding to Rebel groups has been a few cases of arms, which is no match for Russian air power, which is why Alepo is in ruins. And you are still running away from the lack of response by Trump.

Apparently you are stuck in yesterday, because Trump has slightly changed his tone today and it seems more change is to come.

You know so little but say so much.

Here are my stances, I'll fill you in, so you don't have to just make shit up and write long winded rants from a place of ignorance.

Iraq was bad, the Iraq war was a lie. I am no fan of Bush. But since those are the actions we took, Obama gladly accepting that Iraq wanted us to leave was the wrong choice. You do not destroy a country then pack up and go, we didn't do it after WWII and we shouldn't have done it there. We should never arm "rebel groups", it almost always turns out to be a lie or something that morphs into a worse group. American equipment in American hands, or we don't get involved. I want NATO and the UN to be more proactive and less to fall directly on our shoulders.

You're telling me a confusing mesh mass of hypocritical nonsense. First, you tell me that Iraq was a bad war, while blaming Obama for not keeping it going. While also telling me that the US should be more of an isolationist, with the UN being more aggressive military wise. You seem to go with popular ideas, while ignoring realities. It's why you blame Obama for the recent gas attacks, while not holding Trump's lack of response to it, or his recent policies to ignore Syria entirely

My preference was no Iraq war, my preference was not the option which was chosen. Given the reality we had, leaving was the worst thing that could happen. Pretty simple stuff.

Let me clear something up for you

You're doing little more than stating obvious things which happened as if you're shining light.

we were basically kicked out of Iraq by their government

They barely had a government and anything they had was because we built it. We had a choice, Obama just took the first opportunity he could to bow out.

We also spend more money on our military than any other country in the world. And Trump is adding to that. It doesn't make a lick of sense for an isolationist country, who wants the UN to spend more on funding their own military, to increase defense spending on our part while wanting to reduce our military presence in the world. Tell me what I am missing.

A point there.

Lastly, you continue to run away from your argument about how the current situation in Syria is going to change under Trump, and why he shouldn't be be blamed for the gas attacks there, when all he has done is talk, and shown no action to prevent it from happening again.

I've done no such thing. My stance on that is that we'll have to see.

I think I'm done with this political section. This is not how you speak to people.

At 4/5/17 08:37 PM, billybobthwarten wrote: Early on, there was not a massive Russian influence, around the time the red line was drawn. We had a chance to squash it, or at least dampen things, opportunity lost.

I'm sorry, weren't you arguing for the UN to take over the role of the US in terms of policing the world?

Oh, and Russia has had a lot of influence well before then, it just came to light under Obama, as the two collided against each other in the last 8 years. Since then, Putin has further secured his power in Russia by assassinating rivals, promoting corruption, rigging the ballot box, and helping to get Trump elected. Outside of sanctions (Trump wants to get rid of them), which have hurt Russia for their action in Ukraine, and Syria, not much else can be done, other than increasing a costly and dangerous conflict between us and them - a conflict which you seem to be opposed to by your vague defense of Trump, and his lack of a definitive policy that would punish Russia and Assad for what they have done in Syria.

You also seem to think Russia is a pushover. They are not. Even Reagan had a difficult time with them. He may have sounded like an absolute nutcase to the Russians, sounding like he wanted to start WWIII, but that didn't get them to back down. What happened was that he ended up escalating the cold war to see who could bankrupt who first, and only won by default by not giving a damn about the national debt. That's not really the best solution to pursue. Not to mention that the Russians were nearly ready to launch a nuke, because of the extreme rhetoric from Reagan that put them on edge.

I don't tell you all this because I want to massage my own ego by reading my with my own words, I'm telling you that's there really is no simple solution. You seem to think that going over there and simply giving them a black eye is going to solve this shit. It ain't. It's going to lead to even more problems. I told you why the US has shown tepid support of rebel groups, and why we don't just invade Syria. I also told you that Russia complicates this whole thing. If they didn't back Assad, this would have been a much simpler matter. But they are involved, and that make the situation even more complicated and hard to deal with. The last thing we want is another cold war, or worse - especially with a country that seems to want it. It's why we don't bomb the shit out of Iran or North Korea, because both of them are backed by either Russia or China.

Opinion, like much of what you've said.

...and yet, you could not argue against it, because you know that I am right. So, now you are acting indignant.

Apparently you are stuck in yesterday, because Trump has slightly changed his tone today and it seems more change is to come.

Like a lot of things he says, you have to treat it with a grain of salt. He'll often say one thing one week, while claiming he didn't say it the next. It's tiring listening to a guy with a huge ego, who tell you how great his plans are. It's like listening to a used car salesman trying to sell you a lemon, and that lemon is him.

My preference was no Iraq war, my preference was not the option which was chosen. Given the reality we had, leaving was the worst thing that could happen. Pretty simple stuff.

We didn't leave. We were kicked out by the government there, as I said before. Don't you listen?

They barely had a government and anything they had was because we built it. We had a choice, Obama just took the first opportunity he could to bow out.

Please stop making stuff up. I know you live in your own world, and I know you really hate Obama, and love to do the very thing you run away from when done to you.

I've done no such thing. My stance on that is that we'll have to see.

I think I'm done with this political section. This is not how you speak to people.

You don't have a stance. Period. It's whatever Trump's stance is, and you don't even know what that is, which makes your argument rather comical.

The last chemical attack was like 5 years ago. Since Trump took office, he has talked about easing sanctions with Russia, and decided to leave Assad in power, and then Assad decided he could get away with another chemical attack. I mean, it pretty fucking obvious here for why he decided to do it again.

Son, I can see why you don't want to stick around, and it has nothing to do with how I treat you. You are use to living in your own bubble, and you run away as soon as you don't get your way, accusing others of not treating you fairly, or nicely, as an excuse. Talking politics isn't always nice, and yet you treat the other side as being distasteful, and you act pretty condescending towards people you don't agree with. I can be an asshole at times, but I'll freely admit that, which is a heck of a lot more honest than what you are doing.

At 4/5/17 10:50 AM, EdyKel wrote:

At 4/5/17 09:25 AM, DamnedByFate wrote:

At 4/4/17 03:02 PM, EdyKel wrote: Looks like Assad used some more chemicals attacks on his own people.

Do we know for sure it was him? Genuine question.

- it would have to be dropped from a bomber onto a targeted area.

;;;
Problem in getting any real information these days.
But I do know chemical dispersing mortar rounds are available. ground launched & were one of the first ways chemical weapons were used in modern warfare.

There are also , a machine (we call them foggers) that can take any water or oil based medium, & 'crack' it into a vaporizer & one could be used up wind to 'fog' multiple acres of landscape in just a few minutes. Any ground hugging type of mist/vapour cloud would then be carried where ever the breeze carried it & drop into low lying areas.

At 4/6/17 10:05 AM, morefngdbs wrote: There are also , a machine (we call them foggers) that can take any water or oil based medium, & 'crack' it into a vaporizer & one could be used up wind to 'fog' multiple acres of landscape in just a few minutes. Any ground hugging type of mist/vapour cloud would then be carried where ever the breeze carried it & drop into low lying areas.

they first used those in WWI with mustard gas, funny thing was the side that was using it could fuck themselves if the breeze changed and it went into their own trenches.

At 4/6/17 10:05 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 4/5/17 10:50 AM, EdyKel wrote:

At 4/5/17 09:25 AM, DamnedByFate wrote:

At 4/4/17 03:02 PM, EdyKel wrote: Looks like Assad used some more chemicals attacks on his own people.

Do we know for sure it was him? Genuine question.

- it would have to be dropped from a bomber onto a targeted area.

;;;
Problem in getting any real information these days.
But I do know chemical dispersing mortar rounds are available. ground launched & were one of the first ways chemical weapons were used in modern warfare.

There are also , a machine (we call them foggers) that can take any water or oil based medium, & 'crack' it into a vaporizer & one could be used up wind to 'fog' multiple acres of landscape in just a few minutes. Any ground hugging type of mist/vapour cloud would then be carried where ever the breeze carried it & drop into low lying areas.

I'm sure there are other ways to launch chemical attacks, but nothing that a rag tag group of rebels would have. Its was also reported by several eyewitness that the chemical attack was part of an air attack on a rebel held area.

Well Trump has responded to it.

Looks like Trump launched a 50 missile attack against certain airbases in Syria, in response to the recent chemical attack from Assad. I listened to a report where the Pentagon seemed confident that they would not hit any Russian forces, as that would complicate things to a great deal. Here's hoping it's not another Yemen, or worse.

Trump, who apparent recent views on Syria seemed to have been shaped by recent images on cable news, is probably going to crow about his knee jerk reaction, using it to left his image, and low approval numbers, while continuing to trash Obama's, in an effort to hide the fact that his own recent decision last week to allow Assad to stay in power was most likely what triggered the recent chemical attacks..

Policy wise, I don't think this will amount to much, as Assad is still in power, Russia is still involved, and they will still be indiscriminately bombing the shit out of areas with high civilian numbers - which has amounted to over 200,000 civilian deaths, with indiscriminate attacks on civilian areas, with little regard on who is killed. This will continue to dog Trump throughout his term, and may even become worse.

His decision for the strikes in Syria will be moderately successful by among the public, as most will not fault him for the part he played in making Assad think he could get away with doing anything there, and it will lead to a slight, but temporary, rise in his approval numbers. However, it will soon be forgotten, and his numbers will continue to fall, as he continues to act Trumpish, and doesn't do anything more noteworthy on Syria - besides condemning Assad as a bad guy.

At 4/7/17 01:18 AM, Sensationalism wrote: Can't we wait to find out who released the gas before we go dropping bombs on other humans?

I'm doubtful that it was Assad. It's about as believable as the Bay of Tonkin and the WMDs.

While I don't like or trust Bashar al-Assad, this was a poor move by Trump. Like you said, we don't even know for sure if Assad gassed the Syrian people or not. I personally am on the side of the fence that points to Assad being the one who called for the gassing and not someone else. That doesn't mean, though, that the United States can just go in there and drop some bombs in Syria.

This is just stupid.

At 4/6/17 03:50 AM, EdyKel wrote:

Son, I can see why you don't want to stick around, and it has nothing to do with how I treat you. You are use to living in your own bubble, and you run away as soon as you don't get your way, accusing others of not treating you fairly, or nicely, as an excuse. Talking politics isn't always nice, and yet you treat the other side as being distasteful, and you act pretty condescending towards people you don't agree with. I can be an asshole at times, but I'll freely admit that, which is a heck of a lot more honest than what you are doing.

you start a good number of paragraphs with "son", belittling me from go. there's no civil discourse to be found here, merely name calling and projection.

i highly suggest you reread the things you say, the words and tone you choose. speaking to most anyone the way you do, in person, would likely earn you a punch.

At 4/7/17 08:37 AM, Entice wrote:

Why? The Syrian gov't is the only entity in the region that conceivably could be getting ahold of sarin gas on a regular basis.

;;;
don't be ridiculous, iran, Saudi, Turkey,Syria,Russia,Iraq not to mention all the countries the Palestinians are in to assist in moving weapons and munitions into that area, there are multiple rebel groups and countries there, its a swamp that needs to be imo, glassed (you know when nuclear type weapons are air detonated and the ground under the explosion is turned to glass) with a message sent to the Arabs ,North Korea ...telling them play nice and peacefulul from now on...or you are next.
Because I for one have had enough & if nuking the damn planet is the way to stop this....lets do it.

tired of the damn threat, lived with it my entire life , born into a threat of the USA does it China & Russia will retaliate..., hopefully so will france, britain, germany, pakistan India .... get it over with, I am sick of the B.S. & no longer even care if it happens anymore.

At 4/7/17 10:01 AM, billybobthwarten wrote:

At 4/6/17 03:50 AM, EdyKel wrote:

you start a good number of paragraphs with "son", belittling me from go. there's no civil discourse to be found here, merely name calling and projection.

i highly suggest you reread the things you say, the words and tone you choose. speaking to most anyone the way you do, in person, would likely earn you a punch.

*sigh

Son, that's your problem, you spend more time whining about what others call you, rather than building a strong argument. If you actually understood what civil discourse is then you wouldn't be making a post that's all about how mean I am to you. That's not going to help you.

When you make up rules, or standards, you need to follow them, otherwise you will just be a hypocrite. I didn't sign on to your rule of conduct, so you can't use the same argument I am using against you.

But lets get back on topic, instead of making it about two clowns in a thread. Or leave. Your choice.

At 4/5/17 03:36 PM, billybobthwarten wrote: Until Trump does or does not act, this is a bad comparison. Obama drew his red line then lounged around in his mom jeans.

*sigh* people seriously need to do some research or just flat out remember shit right. It was only 3 years ago after all.

Obama drew his red line, yes. Then a hostile Congress said "you can't act militarily without our approval, The Constitution says so". Obama could have said "fuck that, we've been bending what "commander in chief" means for a President for years now, I can totally do a strike". But Obama is/was a Constitutionalist, and wanted to do something different from the current play book. Plus he knew Congress also was echoing a public that was not eager for more military adventures in the Middle East.

Then Putin gave him the out by stepping in and saying "I have negotiated a deal with my friend Assad and we're going to take his chemical stockpile and blow it up per international rules. No more problems here". This allowed the can to be kicked down the road, and Obama even though he had damaged himself politically and in the credibility department of not doing what he said he'd do (the mistake was to ever draw the Red Line, if he was in any way thinking about trying to find a solution to not retaliate militarily), allowed him to claim the issue had been resolved and now there was no reason to attack.

Now let's get to Trump. Trump is a complete hypocrite on this issue because he argued we needed to not do what he just did. We should stay out of Syria because it would gain us nothing but more debt and problems. He railed against the Red Line. He was unequivocal on the issue. So for him to criticize Obama for not intervening....it's just more partisan garbage for the cheap seats and it proves once again that when critics say the President can't be trusted because lying is a way of life...well, he hits that base too.

At 4/8/17 12:32 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

Obama drew his red line, yes. Then a hostile Congress said "you can't act militarily without our approval, The Constitution says so". Obama could have said "fuck that, we've been bending what "commander in chief" means for a President for years now, I can totally do a strike". But Obama is/was a Constitutionalist, and wanted to do something different from the current play book. Plus he knew Congress also was echoing a public that was not eager for more military adventures in the Middle East.

let's not act like obama followed the constitution. expansion of patriot act and killing american citizens without trial via use of drones and all.

the president has power to act for 60 days without seeking approval, he chose not to.

At 4/8/17 02:02 PM, billybobthwarten wrote:

At 4/8/17 12:32 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

Obama drew his red line, yes. Then a hostile Congress said "you can't act militarily without our approval, The Constitution says so". Obama could have said "fuck that, we've been bending what "commander in chief" means for a President for years now, I can totally do a strike". But Obama is/was a Constitutionalist, and wanted to do something different from the current play book. Plus he knew Congress also was echoing a public that was not eager for more military adventures in the Middle East.

let's not act like obama followed the constitution. expansion of patriot act and killing american citizens without trial via use of drones and all.

the president has power to act for 60 days without seeking approval, he chose not to.

Actually, the patriot act was not expanded upon under him, but was limited, with a lot more oversight added to it. But, then again, you should be more pissed off at Bush,and Republicans, who overwhelmingly supported it.

And yes, a president can act without seeking congressional approval for a limited amount of time, which is what Obama did in Lybia - though I don't think he ever got congressional approval for it. But this whole thing is rather a gray area, and it's up to congress to rebuff, or impeach, a president, if they feel that he crossed some constitutional line over it. It's why they never approved, or went after, Obama for fighting ISIS.

At 4/8/17 02:02 PM, billybobthwarten wrote: let's not act like obama followed the constitution. expansion of patriot act and killing american citizens without trial via use of drones and all.

This is completely off topic obfuscation because (I'm guessing) you can't actually refute any of my facts.

the president has power to act for 60 days without seeking approval, he chose not to.

Yes, and because of Partisan shit, Congress will not attack him or try to impeach him or any of the things they would have done had Obama defied them and done similar or the same exact thing. This is one of the fundamental problems that citizens should be mad about in a non-partisan way: Our leaders do not act with consistency towards the standard of law and Constitutionality. It's only bad if the other team does it, and the problem with that mindset is you accidentally wind up setting precedents that less restrained or moral leaders can use to bad ends later.

At 4/8/17 05:44 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 4/8/17 02:02 PM, billybobthwarten wrote: let's not act like obama followed the constitution. expansion of patriot act and killing american citizens without trial via use of drones and all.

This is completely off topic obfuscation because (I'm guessing) you can't actually refute any of my facts.

you claim he respects the constitution, i point out ways in which he did not. you're wrong, you don't like it, that's fine.

At 4/8/17 08:25 PM, billybobthwarten wrote: you claim he respects the constitution, i point out ways in which he did not. you're wrong, you don't like it, that's fine.

You picked out ONE SENTENCE you thought you could jump on, in a post that was....what, two, three paragraphs?

That smacks of somebody who doesn't really want to talk about the issue at hand because he's got nothing but that one sentence to jump on. Plus the sentence along, with the examples given, wander off topic. So unless you're interested in commenting on the whole post, which was on topic...let's just call it a day here. I try very hard not to get bogged down in this kind of thing.

At 4/8/17 09:04 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 4/8/17 08:25 PM, billybobthwarten wrote: you claim he respects the constitution, i point out ways in which he did not. you're wrong, you don't like it, that's fine.

You picked out ONE SENTENCE you thought you could jump on, in a post that was....what, two, three paragraphs?

That smacks of somebody who doesn't really want to talk about the issue at hand because he's got nothing but that one sentence to jump on. Plus the sentence along, with the examples given, wander off topic. So unless you're interested in commenting on the whole post, which was on topic...let's just call it a day here. I try very hard not to get bogged down in this kind of thing.

the point you made in that paragraph was not a correct one, which made the entire paragraph false. obama was not a strict constitutionalist, he didn't hold that document very highly. he played tough and took the out when presented to him, because he wanted that all along.

i'm fine with stopping here.