|
Post by Don on Apr 8, 2017 3:53:36 GMT -5
A friend of mine on Facebook had the best summation of this attack that I've seen.
Perhaps she will drop by and we'll get to hear that wisdom.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Apr 8, 2017 5:53:50 GMT -5
Don, I had no idea you were FB friends with Hillary Clinton.
* I jest, of course.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Apr 8, 2017 18:27:34 GMT -5
Don, I had no idea you were FB friends with Hillary Clinton. * I jest, of course. My friend is much more personable, and honorable.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Apr 8, 2017 20:47:31 GMT -5
Don, I had no idea you were FB friends with Hillary Clinton. * I jest, of course. My friend is much more personable, and honorable. I do hope we hear from her. ETA: Then again, it's so important for women people to be personable. Is she really, truly personable? Because otherwise, I'm not sure I'd want to hear what she has to say.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2017 21:18:28 GMT -5
I hope she posts, and I'm rooting for her to be personable. We have plenty of orneriness around here already.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2017 21:32:18 GMT -5
On the bombing -- I'm a bit torn. On the one hand, that chemical attack was so very heinous. It is difficult for me not to have an emotional reaction to it and want to see it promptly punished and the fuckers who perpetrated it wiped off the earth. I gather most of our allies are feeling this way, although they are putting it in less emotional terms. And I do favor the U.S. intervening when countries are committing heinous human rights abuses (though I don't generally favor us messing with them in most other situations.).
On the other hand (and this is the hand that is winning at the moment): Trump flipped his position on this in what, 24 hours? For years he was all "stay out of Syria! America first! Blah, blah, Rah, rah!" Then in one day, he's dropping bombs? Yeah. I get the emotional reaction, but I want our president to have more restraint and put more consideration into things unless there's a damn good reason he must act on a dime. This is yet another example of what I consider to be his dangerous impulsiveness.
And then too -- I'm really disturbed (as I long have been) at the amount of power our president (Trump in particular, but in general) now has to commit acts of war. I want Congress to be consulted. Yeah, they're a bunch of dumbasses, unfortunately, but I don't want something like this to be up to one person.
And as we already have learned to our damn sorrow, intervening in the middle east can have consequences that are arguably (or definitely) worse than if we'd stayed the fuck out. We need a game plan. Dumping bombs and leaving -- not a game plan.
Finally, it really does bug me that he's so moved by the photos of dead babies that he's dumping bombs -- but at the same time signing executive orders that would prevent living babies from seeking refuge here. I'm crying about the dead babies, too -- but then, I'd welcome the living babies and their families with open arms.
I'm sure I'll have more on this. I've been both very busy (as you've probably gathered), plus this is a difficult issue and I want to think about it.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Apr 8, 2017 21:38:14 GMT -5
I hope she posts, and I'm rooting for her to be personable. We have plenty of orneriness around here already. Yeah but what if a less personable sort of person like Hillary Clinton posted? That would be awful. Okay I'll stop now.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Apr 9, 2017 7:24:33 GMT -5
I hope she posts, and I'm rooting for her to be personable. We have plenty of orneriness around here already. Yeah but what if a less personable sort of person like Hillary Clinton posted? That would be awful. Okay I'll stop now. No, please keep going. You're so cute when you're upset.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Apr 9, 2017 7:27:44 GMT -5
On the bombing -- I'm a bit torn. On the one hand, that chemical attack was so very heinous. It is difficult for me not to have an emotional reaction to it and want to see it promptly punished and the fuckers who perpetrated it wiped off the earth. I gather most of our allies are feeling this way, although they are putting it in less emotional terms. And I do favor the U.S. intervening when countries are committing heinous human rights abuses (though I don't generally favor us messing with them in most other situations.). On the other hand (and this is the hand that is winning at the moment): Trump flipped his position on this in what, 24 hours? For years he was all "stay out of Syria! America first! Blah, blah, Rah, rah!" Then in one day, he's dropping bombs? Yeah. I get the emotional reaction, but I want our president to have more restraint and put more consideration into things unless there's a damn good reason he must act on a dime. This is yet another example of what I consider to be his dangerous impulsiveness. And then too -- I'm really disturbed (as I long have been) at the amount of power our president (Trump in particular, but in general) now has to commit acts of war. I want Congress to be consulted. Yeah, they're a bunch of dumbasses, unfortunately, but I don't want something like this to be up to one person. And as we already have learned to our damn sorrow, intervening in the middle east can have consequences that are arguably (or definitely) worse than if we'd stayed the fuck out. We need a game plan. Dumping bombs and leaving -- not a game plan. Finally, it really does bug me that he's so moved by the photos of dead babies that he's dumping bombs -- but at the same time signing executive orders that would prevent living babies from seeking refuge here. I'm crying about the dead babies, too -- but then, I'd welcome the living babies and their families with open arms. I'm sure I'll have more on this. I've been both very busy (as you've probably gathered), plus this is a difficult issue and I want to think about it. If he actually had a strategy for dealing with this, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to military action. But his response was an impulsive "Lob missiles at 'em! Make big booms!" This did exactly nothing. It's literally the cheapest, safest, only-for-show demonstration of military power we're capable of. We haven't slowed Assad's roll at all. All we did was tick off Russia for no good effect.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 9, 2017 8:23:10 GMT -5
Disagree. It was the smart play, imo, provided he follows through, by whatever means is called for, which includes diplomacy. It only did nothing if Trump returns to ignoring Syria. Politically, it was close to a masterstroke, even though he's catching heat for his obvious empathetic inconsistencies. He differentiated himself from Obama and the later's infamous red line AND he pissed off the Russians, made them look foolish really. Because they were supposed to make sure Syria didn't have any chemical weapons, right? They really do look awful here, imo. ETA: Here's a piece that echoes what I'm saying about Russia.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Apr 9, 2017 9:30:59 GMT -5
Yeah but what if a less personable sort of person like Hillary Clinton posted? That would be awful. Okay I'll stop now. No, please keep going. You're so cute when you're upset. Well, I wasn't upset, just irritated. But yes, I am cute. All the boys say so.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Apr 9, 2017 10:05:45 GMT -5
Disagree. It was the smart play, imo, provided he follows through, by whatever means is called for, which includes diplomacy. It only did nothing if Trump returns to ignoring Syria. Politically, it was close to a masterstroke, even though he's catching heat for his obvious empathetic inconsistencies. He differentiated himself from Obama and the later's infamous red line AND he pissed off the Russians, made them look foolish really. Because they were supposed to make sure Syria didn't have any chemical weapons, right? They really do look awful here, imo. ETA: Here's a piece that echoes what I'm saying about Russia. That is a good piece. It makes me feel a little hopeful. If we are going to get involved, let's be effective. If we can actually save more people from being tortured and killed, let's do that. If only it were that simple. Are we morally obligated to try, regardless? Most times, I think we are. Unfortunately, I think we are very inconsistent in that regard. I also think we make it worse at least as often as we make it better, and time travel should be a thing. There. Chrissy's nonpartisan foreign policy in a nutshell.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Apr 9, 2017 13:42:12 GMT -5
I like "Chrissy's nonpartisan foreign policy in a nutshell".
On a related note - I find it so interesting how many people think Trump simply looked at pictures of children to make his decision to order the air strike. I hardly believe it was that simple, nor that the incredibly smart and knowledgeable people (McMaster, eta al) who helped him make this decision would not have clear intel and other extremely important criteria at their disposal, not to mention decades of experience, in order to inform this.
Also, of course it's perfectly legit (and in many cases desirable) for Trump to change his perspective from 2013 when he wasn't even a candidate. Of course it's a positive to be able to make a turn in one's foreign policy when one is the Commander-In-Chief, as opposed to when one was a clueless private citizen. Situations are fluid, and he's much more informed now that he was then and has intelligent, experienced high-level professionals helping him make these decisions. To simplify this to Trump being impetuous and clueless is simply a way to perpetuate the stereotype the anti-Trump crowd is so invested in perpetuating.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2017 14:02:21 GMT -5
I like "Chrissy's nonpartisan foreign policy in a nutshell". On a related note - I find it so interesting how many people think Trump simply looked at pictures of children to make his decision to order the air strike. I hardly believe it was that simple, nor that the incredibly smart and knowledgeable people (McMaster, eta al) who helped him make this decision would not have clear intel and other extremely important criteria at their disposal, not to mention decades of experience, in order to inform this. Also, of course it's perfectly legit (and in many cases desirable) for Trump to change his perspective from 2013 when he wasn't even a candidate. Of course it's a positive to be able to make a turn in one's foreign policy when one is the Commander-In-Chief, as opposed to when one was a clueless private citizen. Situations are fluid, and he's much more informed now that he was then and has intelligent, experienced high-level professionals helping him make these decisions. To simplify this to Trump being impetuous and clueless is simply a way to perpetuate the stereotype the anti-Trump crowd is so invested in perpetuating. We think that because it is what Trump said. I am quoting Fox News so you cannot claim it is left-wing media distortion: www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/05/trump-says-view-on-assad-syria-changed-after-seeing-chemical-attack.htmlETA: I do my best to check multiple news sources and filter out bias. I check Trump's Twitter feed every day, so as to be sure to get his unfiltered reactions fresh from the fountainhead. I find it somewhat amusing I've been accused of both left and right wing bias, pretty equally over the course of time. I think I tend to bear down harder on those who actually hold the reins of power or seem likely to do so. Right now, that's the Republicans. And they're giving me plenty of material.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Apr 9, 2017 14:19:33 GMT -5
Yup, I watched the press conference with the king of Jordan when Trump said that. And it doesn't change my point. I'm saying I believe he took a lot of things into account to make this decision. And I believe that if his advisors/national security team gave him good reasons and advised him NOT to airstrike, Trump wouldn't have said, "But the children!" and ordered the strike anyway. This was a strategic, not simply an emotional, move.
|
|