Mr. Trump Goes To Washington

[Chase]

On a day when former opponent Hillary Clinton suggested bombing the Syrian air base responsible for gassing it's own citizens with outlawed substances, President Trump did exactly that.

 

The same President Trump that was opposed to military action in Syria in 2013 and was supposedly best friends with Syria's chief ally, Russia.

 

As a person, I can't say that I like war actions being taken as it's a horrible waste of life - and a life for another is nothing but a base act of revenge.

 

As an American, seeing Trump take an egregious action against Syria and Russia is appropriately mainstream - and appreciated. The States' traditional global allies cheered President Trump's actions - even those who are directly opposite Trump on the political spectrum, such as Canada's Trudeau and Germany's Merkel.

 

As a non-Trump voter, this is evidence of the office normalizing the office holder. And the gravity of the Presidency beating Trump's ego daily would make him a respectable leader.

 

Yes, he should definitely learn to consult Congress when he chooses to strike others, and no, I don't expect people to like President Trump's entire policy, but if needed, Trump's first real military foray was one that was supported by left and right alike and could be one of the positive lights of his presidency.

 

Isolationists from Bernie Democrats to Trump's "alt-right" fanboys were put off, but honestly, that's not a lot of lost support.

 

Well done, Mr. President. I'm genuinely impressed.

[5hift]

I dunno maybe its time we just ended this shit.

 

Syria has virtually been bombed off the face of the earth, hell Obama had a lot to do with most of it.

 

Maybe Trump was acting a little rashly but who knows. I think the more we poke at the wound, the worse its going to get.

[Eviora]

You're easier to impress than I expected. Regardless of whether ones agrees with the attack, giving the order to "Go bomb the bad guys" doesn't take a particularly lot of finesse.

 

Personally, I can't say I'm terribly fond of this choice. I agree that something needed to be done in response to those chemical attacks that killed innocent people, but I'm not sure an explosive attack killing more innocent people was the optimal solution. If Trump was trying to send a message, I feel like there were better ways. And if he was trying to cripple the targeted base... well, it's still functional. But, who knows? I guess we'll just have to see which direction this attack shifts our human life calculus in.

 

My paranoid side is currently entertaining tinfoil hat theories postulating that Trump did this to throw us off the scent regarding possible ties to Russia. I find it hard to believe he was actually moved by the suffering of others. Maybe I'm just being cynical.

 

In related news, I'm beginning to realize I could write a scathing review of Trump's presidency so far using exclusively Donald Trump quotes. Twitter really is a gold mine.

 

 

[Deleted User]

[Chase]

I think it's definitely possible Trump is showing Putin the door in a bid to clean up perception about him. Politically speaking - this was the right move to make. This is a move I could see a President Hillary Clinton make (and one she actually advocated the day of.) and yes - the best way to get Russiagate behind you is to outright oppose Russia.

 

Did it have to come to tomahawk missiles? Probably not. However it could also be an indication that negotiations and diplomacy had not done enough to convince Assad under the previous administration that he should completely let go of his chemical weapons. The new intelligence we had following the attack indicated that we had been lied to.

 

And the new administration wasn't going to negotiate with a liar. I believe Trump realized Assad was a bad business partner - and that the attack was a flagrant ignorance of contract. There's not many ways to deal with those who don't honor their word. 

 

Peace through strength isn't a bad last resort - so long as it's treated as such.

 

 

[Deleted User]

What's hilarious is you still just assume that it's Assad using the Chemical weapons when something similar came back in 2013 an independent investigation from the UN showed that the Syrian Government had no signs of using Chemical Weapons and that the Rebels did.

[Eviora]

1 hour ago, Wheat said:

 

Peace through strength isn't a bad last resort - so long as it's treated as such.

 

 

Peace through strength, huh? Not as noble as you make it sound. Anything where you kill the enemy qualifies, really. Of course, that's not what Trump did. He actually just broke some stuff and killed some people who were nearby. Do you really think it ends here? Despite everything history has shown us - even recent history? Violence breeds violence.

 

I won't even dwell on the "last resort" part. It looks more like this is the first thing Trump tried.

 

So, as champions of peace and justice, we're now on the path of murdering first and questioning later. And it's not just Trump. As you say, many people are praising this. This is, in their eyes, right. No wonder we've come to this. We'll just keep doing this over and over. One monster will create the next. And we'll never learn.

 

I can see why some people place so little value on human life.

Edited April 8, 2017 by Eviora

[mde2001]

I've gotta say I'm actually kind of on Trump's side here. I think this is the first thing he's done which I haven't hated. However, I'm not sure how pure his intentions were, as it could have either been in opposition to the atrocities committed by the Assad regime, which I would see as pure intentions, or it could have been a calculated move to boost his own political stability, in which case I would not think it was appropriate. 

 

However I am still pretty nervous that he's going to go well to far with this. A strategic bombing of a military base responsible for using chemical weapons on its own people in one thing, but starting a serious campaign in Syria is entirely different. The thing that concerns me about the overwhelmingly positive response he has received is that Trump has proven that he really likes it when people like him. This means he might have been given the impression that if his popularity is waning, all he needs to do is bomb Syria and he'll receive a boost in the polls. Syria has already suffered enough, and cannot become Trump's tool for popularity. 

 

That being said, the Assad regime's actions towards their own people was so horrific, I think the response was justified in this case. If countries like America can send a strong message that the use of chemical weapons against civilians is unacceptable, then I support them in doing so, provided that these actions don't cause more death and suffering for military civilians. While I think there were 4 non military people at the base in question who were killed, I don't view this action as an attack on civilian lives, and while it did not entirely achieve its mission, hopefully it at least showed that Trump was not just going to support Assad because of his ties to Russia. I think in some ways the whole chemical weapon attack was a twisted test on the Assad regime's part, as they wanted to see whether the new administration in America would stand by. 

 

Unless if there is another chemical attack I don't think Trump should even consider bombing Syria again, and I am not in favour of any further action, but I do think something needed to be done to show the Syrian government and the Russians that international standards need to be met in regards to the use of chemical weapons. 

[Chase]

 Mike - Assad is due opposition. Even if that investigation of yours is correct, there's a reason Syrian refugees are a thing right now. There's a reason there is a rebellion right now. Surely -you- know what Aleppo is?

 

The notion of non-intervention only prolongs those peoples struggles.

 

Unless you think the rebels are the real problem. Which is unfortunate if -Assad- is Syria's idea of the good guy. 

 

---

 

Never said it was noble - and it's a last resort if Trump just made his point and it's left at that.

 

It's more effective than democracy that doesn't do it's job. 

 

 

 

 

[Gaunt]

What i wonder is: will there be a declaration of war after this? Because as far as i know bombing a military base is basically one, Syria of course has no chance but at least it'll be interesting to see what comes of it

[Eviora]

Democracy not doing its job is becoming a bit of a theme these days, isn't it?

 

I suppose first and last resorts can coincide. If your neighbor is making a bit too much noise at night, and the first idea that comes to you is to murder them in cold blood, then I guess that would also be the last resort you ever have to take. It seems unlikely that will be the case in Syria, though. With Assad - and Putin - still at large, there are a multitude of ways this could develop. Trump didn't try anything before turning to violence, so if another nation decides to retaliate, they have little incentive not to respond in kind. But I suppose it is inevitable that the U.S. will retrace its steps in Iraq - the very steps that gave birth to ISIS. Military strength gives the illusion of invulnerability. I wonder what excuses Trump will offer should that illusion be shattered.

[5hift]

52 minutes ago, Gaunt said:

What i wonder is: will there be a declaration of war after this? Because as far as i know bombing a military base is basically one, Syria of course has no chance but at least it'll be interesting to see what comes of it

Like I said we have been bombing Syria for ages now. And yet, nobody really seemed to bat an eye.

 

But then here comes Trump with some 50+ Tomohawks and now its suddenly the end of the world.

 

What I hate most is when people react all sympathetic when they see hundreds of innocent people suffocate to death from chemical weapons but when somebody tries to do something about it, even in the hasty manner that Trump did, they act like its a scandal.

 

Make up you minds. You either deal with the problem or you just sit back and watch. Don't worry though, at least from here we can enjoy the spectacle in relative peace.

 

Pardon my cynicism. Maybe its my own lack of ability to change anything that speaks for me but in the wider view of things its really quite tragic.

[Deleted User]

YEAH AMERICA. WORLD POLICE. 

 

The US has been found to be funding the rebels. The same rebel groups who've been connected to the use of Sarin Gas, but this government and many in the west continue to point the finger at Assad. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Assad is a class act he's not. But why the hell are we funding these sort of people? Why do we continue to give money to empower our inevitable future enemies. It's not like it hasn't already happened a half dozen times in that region.

 

And the use of Sarin Gas has me even MORE wanting to close our borders for refugees. They're in a bad spot, horrible. I get that. But it's not our responsibility to take them in. What's worse is can you imagine if one of the people who come from such a troubled area managed to utilize such an attack in an American city? I'm not taking that risk.

 

Aside from trade, yes I am an isolationist. 

 

Oh P.S. I think you'll all love this. http://www.palmerreport.com/opinion/tomahawk-missiles-were-wrong-choice-for-syria-attack-but-donald-trump-owns-stock-in-the-company/2224/

[Chase]

Look - the idea is that every martial action a group that can't be negotiated with makes begets a martial consequence. Nobody should be allowed to sarin gas their neighbors - be it Assad or otherwise. Assad has proven to be a horrible puppet ruler whose own aggressions are justifiable reason ENOUGH to be a refugee and head out of Dodge. If he were to be toppled, yes, maybe extreme religious rebels fail to make the country better, but that's why nation building is appealing. States that consider the rest of the world an ally and strive for peace are the only tolerable governments there should be in existence. It's these governments that people tend not to flee.

 

We've always differed on foreign policy, Mike. I don't intend to change your views. I just doubt isolationism being "really" possible in the modern world. We have allies that depend on us. We have various campaigns abroad as is - and you already conceded being a free trader. Being a part of this world is more than the bottom line though. 

 

---

 

I don't think Trump did this out of a whim. The administration has loads of work preceding it on Syria and it's fairly reasonable to see that Syria reneged on a deal after the American page turn.

 

---

 

Iraq was indeed a terrible war and we were indeed wrong about WMDs in the country. However, Saddam Hussein isn't better than Al Queda. Assad isn't better than ISIS. If you are going to be a tyrant in a traditional seat of power, you are not protected by your status. It's actions that make you a terror agent.

[Eviora]

1 hour ago, Wheat said:

States that consider the rest of the world an ally and strive for peace are the only tolerable governments there should be in existence.

 

Really? I don't think the U.S. considers North Korea an ally. Does that make us intolerable? Are we supposed to be forcing every single country to consider itself an ally of ours? Do you, like, support taking over the world or something?

 

Trump said he wasn't going to take action in Syria like two or three days before launching those missiles. He did a complete 180. Of course he's acting on his whims. That's what he does.

[5hift]

18 minutes ago, Eviora said:

 

Really? I don't think the U.S. considers North Korea an ally. Does that make us intolerable? Are we supposed to be forcing every single country to consider itself an ally of ours? Do you, like, support taking over the world or something?

 

Trump said he wasn't going to take action in Syria like two or three days before launching those missiles. He did a complete 180. Of course he's acting on his whims. That's what he does.

Lol since when do we have to take over the countries we want to be allies with?

 

That uh... Kinda goes against of what being an ally is.

 

Pretty sure the gas attack had some part to play with Trump's sudden decision otherwise he wouldn't have attacked the very base which stores that stuff.

[Chase]

North Korea seemingly barks a whole lot and bites very little. Firing missiles into the ocean is quite a bit different from sarin gassing people where they are. This matters because the North Koreans are really not doing all that much to warrant martial action that results in destruction. However, We're looking at North Korea down the nose because of the tight grip their government has on their citizens. I don't think North Korea has to like us in order to be a good country. They do need to stop sabre rattling and that might involve a change in leader.

 

Notice I said "rest of the world" and not "the United States" as well. Is it more ideal to allow people be killed by their government -and- ban them from traveling to our country? Or as the rest of the world, should we defend those that need it?

 

Making an environment that is ideal will stop them from fleeing to us. The ban seems to be Trump's prerogative. It will be better complimented by involvement to give those people an alternative.

 

Syria is more allied to Russia and Iran than it is to ITSELF. It's actively engaging in a civil war and it's so concerned with it that Syria is a safe haven for ISIS on top of being a problem from a humanitarian perspective. It's a state that will attack if allowed to do so.

 

To say defending those are in the crosshairs is equivalent of world domination is absurd.

 

 

[Eviora]

The generalization of yours I quoted in my last post was absurd and, judging by your reply, even you don't agree with it. That's why I attacked it so vehemently - which, yes, yielded more absurdity.

 

As far as "defending the world" goes, I do agree that something ought to be done about Assad's chemical attacks (assuming they were his), but I don't think an immediate attack is going to lead us where we want to go. If Syria really is such a staunch ally of Russia's, this attack is tantamount to one on Russia itself, and if we get involved in a serious war with that country, we can be sure that our human life calculus is going to tilt very heavily in the wrong direction.

 

And, I wonder... is Trump really that dedicated to defending the world? Those who died in Syria's recent chemical attacks suffered a particularly painful end, but they are far from the only ones who suffer. There are plenty of people who are going hungry, and plenty more tyrannical governments that oppress their people using more conventional strategies. Most of these just go ignored. Not everything can be solved with military strength, and we don't have the resources to save everyone. But we certainly could do more than we do. So I'm curious - why is this particular instance of "heroics", which left more innocents dead and the perpetrator largely untouched, so praiseworthy? Why is it so much better to stain our own hands than it is to give shelter to those who need it, and risk the worst of them staining theirs?

[Chase]

It's praiseworthy because being opposed to the Syrian regime is bipartisan. It's well within the mainstream, and for Trump that's an exceptional feat. In fact - on a day Neil Gorsuch was easily confirmed as a new Justice without opposition factoring into it - Democrats ended up lauding Trump for his unexpected turn to being agreeable abroad.

 

Much to my dismay, war has a nasty habit of being one of the best ways to unify Americans. If war does break out, this will follow the same cycle Iraqi Freedom did. Bipartisan hawks will make it an easy declaration of war on our country's behalf, and successes will come when Syria's traditional government is crushed under our superior forces.

 

The unideal possibility of Syria being destabilized as other middle eastern countries have will be there. The Russian bear most assuredly would be poked. There may be fallout of all kinds - but it's enough to rally the country initially so long as Syria is seen as a threat.

 

---

 

I don't think war is better than other more effective humanitarian efforts. In Syria however, I have a sinking suspicion Assad nor the rebellion he is dealing with will be willing to stop killing each other and the citizens around them.

 

Mike is right. We need to stop arming the rebels. ESPECIALLY if toppling Syria isn't our intent.

 

We also need Assad to assume the role of a leader that protects his entire country.

 

That likelihood is highly unlikely.

 

[Eviora]

So what Trump did is good because people from both parties say it's good and because others have done similar things in this position before. Further, destabilizing other countries brings Americans together.

 

Riiiight...

 

I'll just leave you to it, then.

 

 

[Maelstrom]

Idk, from what I read, a lot of Republicans hate it because Trump promised not to keep policing the world's problems and put America first.

This man doesn't plan or think about long term consequences. Something happens, he turns a complete 180.

 

While I agree with the intent of the strike, I know that Trump still has no idea what he's doing.

 

And I have to agree with Evi, bipartisan-ship alone isn't enough by itself to make an action 'good.'

 

It's a civil we're watching because one part of the country disagrees with the other part of the country. The reason why Russia and other people support Assad is because he is secular and view the religious opposition as the bad guy. You can't protect your entire country when half of it wants to strangle the other half and the feeling of the other half is mutual. It's hard to say which side is 'better' than the other and its kind of in their own interests of self determination that they were fighting each other without as much interference from us before. We don't know enough about either side or the people who constitute each side to really say definitely which side we should be on

 

Before when chemical weapons were used, we got angry and applied pressures, but we didn't do anything directly. But now we have. But it sets into motions other actions from other countries, such as Russia again. I can see the same thing happening against N Korea, who is allied with China, whose interference in the Korean War is why N Korea and its despot exists as it does. If it weren't for China and Russia, do you really think we'd allow N Korea to exist as it does, enslaved and oppressed by their ruler as they are?

 

A lot of us are glad that something is actually getting done. However, even the world leaders supporting his action doubt his ability to handle things the right way. They support the action, not the man.

[Chase]

Wartime has historically been a motivator for American nationalism and unification. Period.

 

One example already used is Iraq - where the controversial 2000 elections were washed aside following 9/11 and Bush's engagement on the War on Terror. Americans red and blue alike were galvanized by the prospect of more attacks on the homeland and it played into Bush's 2004 re-election bid over John Kerry, which he won much more comfortably.

 

Another example are the two World Wars and how the country rallied behind Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. War is a huge part those presidents saw lengthy stays in the White House.

 

---

 

I don't believe it's in America's immediate interest to destabilize any nation - but it has a poor track record when it comes to successfully nation building in the last two decades - resulting in terror cells rising from the ashes of wars against traditional governments. It's a nasty side effect that America absolutely needs to avoid if it's going to engage Syria this time. It's never been the country's desire to leave Syria vacant so that ISIS or an equivalent can replace Assad. However, many Americans regardless of political identity have had a desire to remove Assad from power because of his inability to rule his nation without committing war crimes against his own citizens.

 

---

 

While we may not know as much as we'd like about the rebellion -or- Assad, we know that holding a seat of power like Assad does comes with an inherent responsibility to protect your own citizens. This puts Assad at an inherent disadvantage when it comes to perception abroad as he has failed to do so and is actively trying to kill his own people if they oppose his rule. That alone makes it hard to back Assad up.

 

Modern warfare has also been highly dependent on alliances. Syria happens to be aligned with Russia, which for the mainstream American is another black eye for Assad regardless of reasoning* behind the alliance (which I'll get to). Russia also seems to be involved in helping Syria fight it's civil war, meaning Russia is more concerned with helping the Syrian regime than it is fighting ISIS (as it has claimed it is doing by backing Assad.)

 

 * I don't think Russia's "one" reason is because Syria is a non-theocratic state and it opposes religion. Another of Russia's best friends is Iran, which is totally an Islamic theocracy. One of the major reasons Iran is a Russian trading partner is because the West has largely sanctioned the country, making Russia the most attractive partner remaining. Syria likely has a similar deal with the Russians.

 

---

 

There are a few Democrats, Independents, and Republicans alike who are opposed to the notion of striking Syria.

 

Starting from the left, we have the Berniecrats. The left wing of the Democratic Party has traditionally been doves and oppose any violence abroad. They also tend to mock Trump for reneging on a 2013 Twitter-storm against Obama when the former president was also considering attacking Syria.

 

You have libertarians and libertarian-minded Republicans such as Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, who have always held, from a more conservative standpoint, that America isn't to be the world's policemen. See: Jericho

 

Then you have Trumpians who were more on board with his populism than his representation of the Republican Party. These types are the alt-right figures from his campaign - such as Steve Bannon (who THANKFULLY is losing more and more influence in Trump's White House in favor of son-in-law Jared Kushner.)

 

Mainstream blocs from both parties - or what you typically think of when you think of Democratic or Republican figures who have been in Washington for a while, are largely supportive of the action Trump made.

 

There may be bipartisan disapproval as well, but these are fringe groups behind most of the dissatisfaction.

 

---

 

The reason bi-partisan appeal is "good" for Trump is that it helps him bolster some allies. I never meant that it was good for America to bomb Syria in general (although almost all of us can agree that it's good SOME action is taking place against that country.) In the microscope that is focused on Trump's presidency, the strike on Syria is the greatest action of impact he has taken that has impressed people from all over the board. This could be Trump's 9/11 or Pearl Harbor moment (which wasn't a happy moment in history, but is one that unified the nation.) - and in the midst of people trying to fight the very fact that he exists off the face of the earth - he really needed something to bounce his way.

 

Bringing it all full circle, conflicts abroad re-shape the presidency.

 

---

I'm well aware of China's alliance with North Korea - but that doesn't excuse the United States being a patsy and subjecting it's ally in South Korea to fear it's neighbor will harm them. China seems to more less "unconditional" than was advertised, and is only backing North Korea because they sure as heck don't want a united Korea that is too friendly to the United States. The thing about North Korea is, the country doesn't even need to change North Korea's government all that much. It's literally Pyongyang's leadership that is slinging the muck on that country's perception.

 

I would contend that the United States is prepared to take on Russia, and has been rather unwilling for the sake of diplomacy. Russia certainly didn't do anything other than move a battleship to Syria in response to the United States flipping them off with the strike.

---

Finally, I would like to say that I never said I trust President Trump's trigger fingers even if they have earned themselves a "W". I trust the people Trump has with him. Mad Dog and McMaster (who is much better than Flynn) were some of Trump's better nominations. Nikki Haley at the U.N. is a good person to trust. His son in law - despite the rather lousy idea that making any business a family business is automatically bad - is a well measured personality.

 

Trump's presidency largely depends on how successful his advisory team can inform him of what's going on. He has good people - and that makes the potential ceiling his presidency has higher than the liberal comedian circuit will lead you to believe.

 

Of course, if your mindset is set to #Resist, Trump could completely bring everyone's loved ones back from war in one fell swoop and he would still be hated by his opponents for it.