Where things go from here is anyone's guess. One of the reasons I was against Congress giving support for Obama's airstrikes in 2013 was worry not only over the president's ambivalence but also possible escalation. Presidential ambivalence is gone, but my worry remains. I do think that this operation was about the best one could hope for: the message and objective was clear, the focus limited, the force overwhelming, support broad and deep. Assad may think twice before using these deadly agents again. Russia may be more inclined to replace him with one of his generals. But it is still worth thinking through possible responses if Assad crosses one of President Trump's many lines again. Whatever the future holds, we do know this, President Trump's foreign policy will look nothing like President Obama's.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Chemical attack in Syria
- Thread starter Aus22
- Start date
Werbung:
President Trump did more than retaliate for al-Assad's illegal and inhumane use of nerve agents against civilians when he ordered the launch of 59 Tomahawk missiles to destroy al-Shayrat airbase in Syria. He also detonated a few holes in Obama's foreign policy.
First is the idea that President Obama's 2013 deal to remove Assad's weapons of mass destruction was a success. The second casualty of the U.S. strike was the absurd Obama line that the only alternatives available to a president are inaction on one hand and a massive ground invasion and occupation on the other. The third and final straw man Trump lit on fire. When President Obama punted on Syria in 2013, he claimed there was no international support for limited intervention. True, David Cameron lost a vote in Parliament on the matter. But the actual powers Obama didn't want to offend were Iran and Russia. He worried they would scuttle the Iran nuclear deal as payback.
First is the idea that President Obama's 2013 deal to remove Assad's weapons of mass destruction was a success. The second casualty of the U.S. strike was the absurd Obama line that the only alternatives available to a president are inaction on one hand and a massive ground invasion and occupation on the other. The third and final straw man Trump lit on fire. When President Obama punted on Syria in 2013, he claimed there was no international support for limited intervention. True, David Cameron lost a vote in Parliament on the matter. But the actual powers Obama didn't want to offend were Iran and Russia. He worried they would scuttle the Iran nuclear deal as payback.
Openmind
Well-Known Member
You forgot that there was NO SUPPORT in US Congress either! They REFUSED the request Obama made to get involved.
And. . .Trump twitted MANY times that he was against involvement also! Even said that, if Obama got involved in Syria or Lybia. .it would be because his approval polls were going down!
Sounds familiar????
No. Trump was clear, intentions specific and goals clear.
Your boy was anything but.
No I didn't, I was against it too..I agree with the reasons given..
The difference between the reaction to this chemical attack and earlier once is we have a President with passion. This is not wrong. If Churchill did not have passion I doubt we would have won WW2. Also Trump now had the responsibility of high office. He did not last time so he could take the easy way out and opposed. His decision to attack was supported by most of his political advisers. The military knew it was practical because they had planed it last time. Whether it will succeed in its all its aims only time will ten. But it improved Trump poll standing and make any future chemical attack more doubtful Even getting rid of Assad is being talk about.
Any response will have to be weigh up. If rebels are attack by Russia this will make them weaker. It will make negotiations more difficult. There may be more attacks on Americans and Christians in the Middle East But this is the price we will have to pay.
Any response will have to be weigh up. If rebels are attack by Russia this will make them weaker. It will make negotiations more difficult. There may be more attacks on Americans and Christians in the Middle East But this is the price we will have to pay.
The Scotsman
Well-Known Member
I mother I don't you what you mean..
I assume you're talking turkey though so please explain the significance of Turkey.
The Scotsman
Well-Known Member
Why? He hasn't before - this isn't the first time the Syrians have used nerve agents.
Presumably the same consequences as all the other red lines that have been crossed which is pretty much nothing of consequence. Puff and bluster and denounce and re-distribute a few stones and nothing else. What do you think the US/NATO/European responses will be? Send in the troops and tanks or park a carrier force off the coast? Do you seriously consider US/NATO troops going head to head in the desert?
You seem to think that Russia has some advantage because they can land a plane. They dont. If they can't drive to Syria they only have what is tolerated by all the countries surrounding Syria.I mother I don't you what you mean..
I assume you're talking turkey though so please explain the significance of Turkey.
The Scotsman
Well-Known Member
That's a pretty good advantage don't you think? They also have a Port there as well.
So back to Turkey explain the significance of Turkey.
Old_Trapper70
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,383
But the reasons are the same. The only difference is that in 2013 Russia offered a diplomatic alternative, which failed, thus giving the Republicans reason to prevent Obama from taking military action.
Then too, look at the difference in the political situations. Obama went to Congress in DC, Trump went to his "situation room" at Mar-a-lago after having a fancy dinner with the PM of China,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...umps-mar-a-lago-strange-situation-room-syria/
"After hosting a lavish dinner, the president had stepped into a small, private side room, that was quickly decked out with secure communications equipment. A note urging for "quiet" was tacked with sellotape on the door. He and his staff sat on gold painted wedding chairs.
The image of the president, surrounded by more than a dozen aides, staring at a screen at the end of the table, was no doubt intended to draw a parallel with the iconic photograph released of Barack Obama watching the 2011 raid against Osama bin Laden.
Barack Obama and senior members of the administration being briefed on the operation against Osama bin Laden Credit: Peter Souza/AP
But the Trump administration's version is decidedly more ad hoc. The Obama photograph, showed the former president with his vice president, secretary of state and national security aides.
Mr Trump's gathering included Jared Kushner, his son-in-law and senior adviser, Rex Tillerson, the secretary of state, and General H R McMaster, his national security adviser. Steve Bannon, his chief strategist, and Stephen Miller, his senior adviser and Sean Spicer, his press secretary were also in the room.
There were a surprising number of aides, who have little to do with defence. Stephen Mnuchin, the treasury secretary and Wilbur Ross, the commerce secretary were among those pictured.
As I said, they can only land a plane if they're allowed. Similarly they can only float a boat there if allowed.
If you can't drive there, you have no advantage. And none of the surrounding countried are ok with this. Turkey matters most as they are involved land and sea.
Old_Trapper70
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,383
Why would they care when they can land, and take off, at will from their own air strips?
Werbung:
Openmind
Well-Known Member
So. . .what changed? Do you feel more comfortable with a childish, untrustworthy president that makes decisions based on emotions and on his need to "score one," rather than with a thoughtful, rule following president?
And if so. . .why?
Similar threads
