Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2017 14:29:05 GMT -5
I've cited Trump's words to support my opinion. There is also the fact that until recently, he had a different take on the Syria issue.
What support do you have for your opinion?
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 9, 2017 15:16:36 GMT -5
True: Trump said that the pics of children and babies caused him to change his mind on Syria.
False: That change in attitude was the sum total of the "why" behind the airstrike and its specifics.
As a response to these pics of children and babies, Trump could have done a lot of different things. But the decision that he did make--with a great deal of help, no doubt--was to launch a very limited strike against one air base, which may or may not have done significant damages to Syria's ability to make more chemical weapons attacks. What it did do was serve notice to Russia, as a much as to Syria, that more chemical weapons attacks would not be met with indifference by the US. I saw a lot of the initial responses to the attacks on social media by friends and others who can't stand. And the majority of the responses were along the lines of "Oh, Trump feels bad for these babies, so he launches an attack with no thought to how many civilians and maybe even children that he might kill."
That's ridiculous, imo. The airstrike was really limited. The targets were quite specific. There was advance warning. The spin of Trump seeing the pics then yelling "Attack!" is nonsense, but far too common.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2017 16:03:30 GMT -5
Cites on Trump's "why," demonstrating that his change of heart was due to factors other than the chemical attack resulting in dead beautiful babies?
I don't mean after-the-fact reasoning on why one might bomb Syria, I don't mean other peoples' reasoning or your reasoning, I don't mean "well, surely he had other reasons." I mean evidence showing that other factors besides dead babies caused Trump to change his mind about going in with teh bombs.
If you and c.e. are going to claim that I am just pulling the statement out of my ass -- when I'm citing Trump's own words, no less -- you're going to have to cite Trump's own words supporting your statement that he had many other reasons. I mean, I suppose you don't have to give me some evidence. But you certainly aren't going to convince me otherwise. From what I've seen, quite sincerely, without twisting: He was against intervening in Syria. Has been for a while. Been quite consistent about it. Chemical attack happens. Babies die. Trump drops bombs in Syria. Trump says dead beautiful babies are what changed his mind on Syria and Assad.
So. That's where I'm getting my opinion from. I've supported it. Where are you getting your opinion that Trump relied on other factors for his change of heart? Show me. Educate me. What else has he said?
*I* know foreign policy decisions, particularly those involving bombs, are nuanced and complicated. But I'm not at all sure that Mr. Trump knows it. I'm glad he at last discovered health care was complicated. But I'm thinking its news to him that most things involving national and international issues are pretty damn complicated.
ETA:
You could likely convince me that bombing Syria was not a bad thing in the long run -- as I've already said, I'm somewhat torn. And I do think (as I've already said) that how we follow up is going to make a very big difference. I'm not dismissing your arguments on why bombing Syria might be justified. I'm very specifically talking about Trump's reasons for ordering the bombing.
You can do something that ultimately works out fine -- that might indeed be justifiable -- and still do it impulsively and/or for inadequate reasons. Good intentions sometimes backfire, and stupid actions sometimes have unexpectedly good results. Two people might do exactly the same thing, one for excellent thought-out reasons, and one out of impulse.
Trump seems to me to act way too often on impulse. I don't like it. It's the main thing that scares me about him -- even when I don't have a particular problem with his actual act.
ETA:
Hell, you might even convince me that dead beautiful babies are enough to justify the bombs. I'm pretty damn horrified and upset myself --my emotional reaction tends toward "bomb those fuckers out of existence!" (it's just that I don't always act on my emotional reactions.) Dead beautiful babies are certainly one big reason I favor allowing in more refugees.
The only thing I'm saying here -- by Trump's own words, seeing the pictures of dead beautiful babies were why he changed his mind on Assad and Syria. You're saying that's not right. Fine. Cites?
I'd genuinely like to see evidence that it was not, in fact, a hasty, impulsive decision, and was instead the result of a well-considered plan. I'd sleep way better. My nightmares about Trump revolve more on him starting world war three out of peevishness and ego than they do around anything else.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 9, 2017 16:54:12 GMT -5
Cites on Trump's "why," demonstrating that his change of heart was due to factors other than the chemical attack resulting in dead beautiful babies? I'm not suggesting that. Read what I wrote, again. There's no doubt that Trump said the pic caused his change in attitude; there's no reason why we shouldn't take him at his word, imo. However, that doesn't translate into Trump seeing the pics then immediately ordering a retaliatory airstrike, damn the consequences, which is exactly how I was seeing it--am still seeing it, actually--portrayed. CE has something of a point in that regard, imo. The specifics of the attack indicate more considerations than just to launch some missiles, imo.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2017 18:31:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Apr 9, 2017 19:02:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Apr 9, 2017 20:01:24 GMT -5
Trump's press conference spiel was emotional, and unnecessarily so, in my opinion. Doesn't mean his decision to bomb the airfield was.
I do wish I could wipe his voice saying "beautiful babies" from my memory bank, but that's beside the point.
(Full disclosure, I freely admit that I have a bias against Trump's "soft" voice. It gives me the creeps. Sorry.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2017 20:23:10 GMT -5
The "what, 24 hours?" was a bit of hyperbole on my part, I admit. As for the rest -- For literally years, Trump's position has been "don't attack Syria." Back in 2013, he was adamant that Obama should not do so, and that he must get Congressional approval if he did. By his own statement, he changed his mind about Syria based on photos of the attack. (Whether the resulting attack was decently planned or not by those who knew what they are doing is another issue.) Syria used chemical weapons in 2013. obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/30/government-assessment-syrian-government-s-use-chemical-weapons-august-21Here's Trump saying afterward "Obama, you need Congressional approval to attack!" Here's Trump saying "Don't attack!" Here he is saying it again: That's continued to be his position ever since -- until he saw those pictures. Contrary to his statement on what Obama should do, Trump did not get Congressional approval (or international) approval. I really do not want our presidents -- any of them, but especially this president -- committing acts of war without consulting Congress. And I don't want us doing much of anything in the Middle East without a long-term, well-thought out plan -- and not just for that one attack. Remember our little foray to take out Saddam? ETA: at least the Syrian government is cowed now and learned its lesson, right? er, no. www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-syria-turkey-assad-20170408-story.htmlsee also www.washingtonpost.com/world/warplanes-return-to-syrian-town-devastated-by-chemical-attack/2017/04/08/38a5d8cc-1bdc-11e7-8598-9a99da559f9e_story.html?utm_term=.0b91bf4796d3Look, Assad sucks. The chemical attack was horrifying. But are we committed to staying in there until this is done, Assad is out, and peace is restored? Do we have a plan for that? Are the people cheering the strike on board for it? If so, well and good. I'd like Assad gone and peace in Syria. But if not... ETA: My idea of putting adequate thought and planning into an act of war goes way beyond whether our bombs hit their intended targets on that initial strike. It includes: so what happens after that? What are they likely to do? How will we respond under various scenarios? What are we willing to commit? What are we not willing to commit, and what happens if we don't? ETA:. Another thing:. Thousands and thousands of Syrian civilians have died. Hundreds of thousands. 470,000, 55,000 of them children. www.iamsyria.org/death-tolls.htmlBut apparently, inTrump's mind, 55,000 babies plus 420,000 adults blown to bits did not justify bombing. The chemical attack in 2013 didn't justify it either. But the 100 or so killed in this attack -- that -- THAT was too much. I don't mean to say the hundred or so killed in this chemical attack weren't important and that it wasn't an atrocity. They were; it was. It's horrifying. But it's been horrifying for quite a while now, and it didn't bother him. He was all about keeping Syrian refugees out of the U.S. (still is) and opposed to our going into Syria to help. So what suddenly is so different, suddenly justifying actions Trump consistently and loudly condemned until now? Hmm. I'd assumed he spoke truth about being horrified by the pictures, but maybe it's not just the babies after all. Maybe it's that there's no better distraction from failure and controversy than dropping a shitpile of missiles and condemning an atrocity. Whatever the reason, it's not so much I disagree that we should do something about Syria. ( As a matter of fact, I tend to think we should. ) It's just that I think it absolutely imperative we have a well-thought out long-range plan before doing so, and I doubt like hell we do. The fact that these missiles were carefully aimed 63 hours after the chemical attack is not proof of that at all, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Apr 10, 2017 5:03:49 GMT -5
Then I'll come in, look for root causes, and piss everybody off. As far as debates go, I'd like to see Buffy Saint-Marie debate Dolph Lundgren on the meaning of the term "Universal Soldier."
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Apr 10, 2017 8:36:30 GMT -5
I have to agree with Cass. It's ridiculous for the President to react emotionally to one atrocity, as if it's somehow different or more heinous than what's been going on for years.
And all this after-the-fact reconstruction of Trump's decision as some sort of deep, carefully considered message to Syria and Russia strikes me as just that - after-the-fact rationalization to make what we know, on the face of it, was an ineffective showy demonstration of bang-bangs.
I'd love to see more evidence that somehow this will change the status quo for the better or that Trump wasn't just lobbing missiles because beautiful dead babies gave him the sads, but don't label me part of the "anti-Trump agenda" just because I'm not seeing any second-level thinking going on here.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 10, 2017 8:46:23 GMT -5
And all this after-the-fact reconstruction of Trump's decision as some sort of deep, carefully considered message to Syria and Russia strikes me as just that - after-the-fact rationalization to make what we know, on the face of it, was an ineffective showy demonstration of bang-bangs. Regardless of Trump's motivations/reasoning, I disagree that it was ineffective. And I'm far from alone in that regard.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Apr 10, 2017 8:48:21 GMT -5
And all this after-the-fact reconstruction of Trump's decision as some sort of deep, carefully considered message to Syria and Russia strikes me as just that - after-the-fact rationalization to make what we know, on the face of it, was an ineffective showy demonstration of bang-bangs. Regardless of Trump's motivations/reasoning, I disagree that it was ineffective. And I'm far from alone in that regard. Well, yeah, knee-jerk defenders of Trump are falling over themselves to defend Trump. And knee-jerk Trump-haters are falling over themselves to condemn him. From my perspective, the evidence suggests that the Trump haters have a better case, if not necessarily for the right reasons.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2017 8:53:55 GMT -5
Out of curiosity, what was effective about it? Assad was out bombing immediately, killing civilians. It did not stop him. It didn't even make him hesitate, from what I can see.
ETA:
I suppose it was effective in getting a lot of people to temporarily stop talking about the Russia pre-election cabal and the healthcare fail. But that seems like a poor reason to commit an act of war, in my book.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 10, 2017 9:08:09 GMT -5
From my perspective, this was the only real choice as a response to a chemical weapon attack, of we are really serious about stopping governments from using the same. The Obama admin set a red line and then when it was crossed, the admin opted to broker a deal with Russia wherein Syria would be forced to give up all of its chemical weapons. Here's a bit of how that went down: www.cbsnews.com/news/what-happened-to-russias-agreement-to-eliminate-syrias-chemical-weapons/From it: Obvious, we wasted a tone of time and resources on that deal. A lot of people are talking about how much this latest missile strike cost. How much did the deal to eliminate all of Syria's chemical weapons cost, do you think? And what did it ultimately achieve? (FYI, a piece on the potential costs of the program: www.chemistryworld.com/feature/eliminating-syrias-chemical-weapons/7390.article)So what were the other choices here? Do nothing? Go through the UN (which would have taken time and probably led to an extended argument on whether or not the Assad regime was actually responsible for the attack, a question that now seems moot)? Ask Russia to do a better job (imagine the press's response to THAT)?
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 10, 2017 9:09:23 GMT -5
Out of curiosity, what was effective about it? Assad was out bombing immediately, killing civilians. It did not stop him. It didn't even make him hesitate, from what I can see. Is he still using chemical weapons in those attacks?
|
|