First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next  Last
Post Reply US War On Syria?
10778 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / The state of Wash...
Offline
Posted 4/6/17 , edited 4/9/17
Should America go to War against Syria?

"President" Trump thinks so. On the news today he said he planning to send ground troops into Syria and take down the government.

We all know what that means. More "refugees" More tax money to war. War spilling into Iran. War with Russia. War with China.

Here we go again.
23867 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Offline
Posted 4/6/17
Is it war with Isis or the Syrian Government?
2429 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Miami/Hawaii
Offline
Posted 4/6/17
People will attribute it to them going hand in hand, this isn't a sturdy topic and alas, the storm will come

28144 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 4/6/17 , edited 4/6/17
That would be a mistake. The U.S. needs to pull out if wars not start or jump into new ones.
10778 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / The state of Wash...
Offline
Posted 4/6/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

Is it war with Isis or the Syrian Government?


It will be a war against the Syrian government, from my understanding.
1006 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/6/17 , edited 4/8/17
This is insane.

I don't trust someone like Trump to make such decisions. That guy has no brain, please no
8100 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/6/17 , edited 4/8/17


First thing you need to understand about Trump is that a lot of the "crazy" things he says is part of a negotiation tactic.

Make the other side think you are hard, dominate, unwilling to bend, and perhaps even a little unhinged then they will be more willing to appease you if they believe they have no choice but to deal with you. Other world leaders do it to us all the time and our leaders on the Left always fall for it and typically give up way to much.
48392 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 4/6/17 , edited 4/6/17

GardanTheBlue wrote:



First thing you need to understand about Trump is that a lot of the "crazy" things he says is part of a negotiation tactic.

Make the other side think you are hard, dominate, unwilling to bend, and perhaps even a little unhinged then they will be more willing to appease you if they believe they have no choice but to deal with you. Other world leaders do it to us all the time and our leaders on the Left always fall for it and typically give up way to much.


Yeah that's now how it works, cute though.

Edit: Trump didn't say he was sending in ground troops, he just said something must be done.
23867 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Offline
Posted 4/6/17 , edited 4/6/17

brookline wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

Is it war with Isis or the Syrian Government?


It will be a war against the Syrian government, from my understanding.


It seems to be in the past preparation for a capture of Raqqa, the proclaimed capital of ISIl. Trump now appears to be trying to topple Assad's regime, especially considering the chemical attack in the past week or so?

Obama considered action during his presidency after previous reports of a chemical attack in another province, but Russia stepped in to negotiate the removal of weapons, which I did not believe worked, obviously.

Trump considered bolstering Assad to help weaken ISIS in the past, which is why this change of heart may be surprising.

I am not a Trump supporter, but I do intensely dislike the notion of supporting a brutal dictator for the want of peace. I cannot say I disagree with it on a conscientious basis, but practically, I am not too sure. I hope Mattis has a few plans.
riem2k 
11156 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 4/6/17
Didn't a key component of the moderate rebels who oppose Assad struck a non-aggression pact with ISIS when they supposedly were deepening ties with the USA in the past!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/12/isis-deal-syria_n_5814128.html
21829 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
53 / M / In
Online
Posted 4/6/17
Never get in the middle of a civil war it never ends well. There is no bloodier fight then the fight between two brothers
runec 
36057 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/6/17
How many times has Trump flipped on Assad now? Its bad enough to be threatening to go into yet another quagmire in the middle east. But to be doing so on a whim seems especially insane. How can Assad not be a priority, but the previous chemical weapon attack not be worth taking action over, but this chemical attack still be Obama's fault for not prioritizing the removal of Assad over the last attack, but now Assad is a priority worth putting boots on the ground?

Not to mention North Korea. Is he going to walk into two quagmires and trip into both Russia and China at the same time? >.>


38964 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/6/17
I don't think you heard something right or your news source isn't the best. Didn't say anything about sending in ground troops, it's not happening.
59410 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
59 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 4/6/17

runec wrote:

How many times has Trump flipped on Assad now? Its bad enough to be threatening to go into yet another quagmire in the middle east. But to be doing so on a whim seems especially insane. How can Assad not be a priority, but the previous chemical weapon attack not be worth taking action over, but this chemical attack still be Obama's fault for not prioritizing the removal of Assad over the last attack, but now Assad is a priority worth putting boots on the ground?

Not to mention North Korea. Is he going to walk into two quagmires and trip into both Russia and China at the same time? >.>




Please recall that the President's use of alternative facts and truthful hyperbole is his stock in trade. Whatever he said, whether publicly or on Twitter he meant, until he didn't.

Note also that it isn't the Secretary of State who's taking the lead, but Jared Kushner is the one advising the President.

I happen to think that military engagement in Syria is a poor idea, though it may be the least bad option available. I'm not sure the US at this time could gather sufficient support for (further) economic sanctions through the UN or that said sanctions would be sufficient leverage to move Assad from power.

In regards to North Korea, I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see Russia step into the vacuum if China decides their interests in the area are better served by ditching Kim.
2348 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / The margins
Offline
Posted 4/6/17 , edited 4/10/17
I think it's fair to have opinions on this, but I think it's also important to realize that wars and international relations are incredibly complicated. So if you're not a think tank, you probably aren't that qualified to make a pronouncement on what should be done. Anybody can say that Syria has been sitting unsolved for too long so we should just march in and fix everything, or that the U.S. is addicted to foreign interventions and ought to spend more time on its own affairs, but few people have the information or expertise to make a solid case for either of these positions. Especially when it comes to crises like in Syria, as those require high-level foreign policy analysis - and the information necessary for that isn't made available to the public. I probably know more than the average American about the situation, but I still know very little. What I do know is that foreign policy decisions can't be based on blanket platitudes. Think about that before you state them as sufficient to determine the proper course of action.

Another thing that bothers me is that Syria is suddenly news because of some chemical weapons attack. Hasn't it already been established that Assad used chemical weapons several years ago, and that the measures put in place at the time to prevent him from using chemical weapons in the future were lacking? Isn't there still a civil war - in which people are dying whether or not chemical weapons were used? And wasn't the Trump administration starting to say they would live with Assad? It's not good to have foreign policy swayed disproportionately by sensational news (even if it is horrible). Incidentally, this is why democracy is bad: People en masse just blow with the media wind; elected representatives don't have to. Whatever the U.S. ends up doing, it would be bad for the world if the U.S. went to war solely because the media coverage of this attack changed everyone's feelings about it, making war politically palatable. That would be a bad sign for the possibility of competent leadership.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.