US Political Discussion: Trump Administration Edition (Rules in OP)

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by mongey, Mar 2, 2016.

  1. oc616

    oc616 Control Deck Wins

    Messages:
    357
    Likes Received:
    77
    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Location:
    England
    2016: "Hillary is a warhawk, I'll never vote for her, Trump understands conflict in the middle east is bad."

    Today: "Action in Syria was inevitable, it would have happened whether Hillary or Trump got in."

    Can this man do nothing to invalidate any argument for him?
     
  2. AngstRiddenDreams

    AngstRiddenDreams Filthy Casual

    Messages:
    3,503
    Likes Received:
    389
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2011
    Location:
    Seattle
    Daddy knows best
     
  3. UnderTheSign

    UnderTheSign SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    2,975
    Likes Received:
    207
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    Location:
    West Coast, The Netherlands
    Came here to post this. Really, did no one see this coming? Like, man, we over here on this side of the ocean might have made some bad political decisions but at least in our elections a month ago we kept our crazy blondie away from any form of power, for a reason.
     
  4. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    15,122
    Likes Received:
    3,311
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    So, in mechanics alone, this is no different than what Obama did, really.

    But, in terms of the context around it, IMO, there is a night and day difference. Trump seems to be trying to make a power play of this. But this sort of gambit has never paid off in the past- why is it any different now? Maybe Trump isn't doing this to make a statement in the middle east. Maybe he's doing it to make a statement in East Asia. Whatever the case, I have little confidence that he actually knows what he's doing.
     
  5. celticelk

    celticelk Enflamed with prayer

    Messages:
    4,386
    Likes Received:
    345
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, MI
    ^^^ Obama's actions in Syria were against ISIS, not the Assad government, so yes, this is a significantly different action.
     
  6. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    15,122
    Likes Received:
    3,311
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    Be still my heart! CelticElk and Bostjan agreed on something in the PC&E forum! :cheers:

    In all seriousness, though, what's Trump's next move in this? Hopefully nothing.
     
  7. MFB

    MFB ExBendable

    Messages:
    12,506
    Likes Received:
    1,787
    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2008
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    Digging his heels in to his own opinion that whatever he does next will be the right move
     
  8. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    15,122
    Likes Received:
    3,311
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    Heh, well, that's not really his next move, so much as just a general description of everything he does.

    I just get this sinking feeling like this is going to end up going the wrong way soon.
     
  9. will_shred

    will_shred Wannabe audio engineer

    Messages:
    3,074
    Likes Received:
    643
    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Location:
    Rochester NY
    I feel like there's something to be said for enforcing international treaties against the use of chemical weapons. I think that it was a mistake of the Obama administration to not enforce their "red line" back in 2013. I feel like the Russians and the Assad regime have been deliberately pushing the boundaries of what NATO/America will tolerate, and allowing it to go unchecked could be more dangerous then doing nothing at all.
     
  10. flint757

    flint757 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    6,264
    Likes Received:
    197
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2011
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Wasn't Assad found innocent in 2013. I thought that they proved it was actually the rebel groups, which have been recently accused of having more than mild ties to ISIS, Al Qaeda, and Al-Nusra as well. It makes zero sense IMO for Assad to deliberately do what he's currently being accused of doing on the eve of peace talks just after the White House made a statement that they would let the people decide.

    The version of the story I heard that sounds more plausible, to me at least, is that they blew up a terrorist weapon arsenal and the arsenal contained an unknown quantity of sarin gas. The rebels and ISIS have chemical weapons, so that's not a stretch and they have every reason to get the world to turn on Assad.

    As for looking for some sort of justice in this situation, it's like we conveniently forget what deposing a leader inevitably leads to in the middle east. The more destabilized the country the more likely ISIS will take it over. Even if our motives were righteous, which they absolutely are not, the end result is a worse situation quite similar to Libya and Iraq. Going on the offensive is only going to continue to agitate the likes of Iran and Russia as well. Iran is not an enemy we want to take on and I don't think bringing us closer to nuclear war is a smart move regardless of the person who's leading us there.
     
  11. tedtan

    tedtan SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    4,435
    Likes Received:
    933
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Location:
    Never Neverland
    I've felt that way since back when no one thought he had a chance of winning the election. Unfortunately, he continues proving me correct at every opportunity.


    Absolutely correct on both points.
     
  12. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    29,155
    Likes Received:
    4,735
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    No - Assad claimed it wasn't him in 2013, and similarly blamed a terrorist group this time around, but the international consensus and intelligence estimate then and today was pretty clear that he was behind both.

    IMO, both Obama and Trump got this wrong, for different reasons. Obama drew a hard line on the use of chemical weapons, and Assad tested that line. Rather than following through, Obama put the measure to vote in Congress, where (and if you want to try to build a defense for him, this is the only one I could see - the Republican) Congress voted it down. He talked the talk, but then didn't walk the walk.

    Trump, meanwhile, spent the last week publicly distancing America from the conflict, saying it wasn't our problem, Assad could do what he wanted inside his borders, etc, only really publicly condemning the attack in fairly strong terms yesterday, before unexpectedly dropping 59 Tomahawks on the air base the attack originated from (but not before alerting the Russians to warn their troops there, who I'm SURE did not alert their Syrian allies :nuts:). Basically, while Trump walked the walk, he never talked the talk - that last week could have been spent building international support for a targeted military strike, and instead spent that time saying it wasn't America's problem.

    Obama came away looking weak and ineffectual, Trump came away looking uninformed and impulsive. Neither looked in control.

    (FWIW, I think some sort of retaliation was necessary, and I mostly object to how Trump handled this, not what he did.)
     
  13. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    15,122
    Likes Received:
    3,311
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    Well, the questions I think about are:

    1. Why is the USA unilaterally responsible for enforcing international law?
    2. What is the due process in this case?
    3. What is the appropriate punishment for violating chemical weapons treaties?
    4. If the answer to #3 is to be removed from power, then who receives the transfer of power?

    My opinion:

    1. We are not.
    2. A UN investigation and hearing.
    3. Military sanctions.
    4. Not an entirely new government, but this should go down the chain of command until a suitable replacement leader is in power.

    What do you think?
     
  14. flint757

    flint757 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    6,264
    Likes Received:
    197
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2011
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    'Pretty clear' it has not been at all, especially for the most recent event. Before an investigation could fully unfold we went and bombed the $hit out of Syria yet again. The incident is still only allegedly Assad's doing. Nothing has been definitively proven.

    We can argue whether or not Assad is insane, but it makes zero sense for him to drop chemical weapons on the eve of peace talks when the White House said they were going to back off.
     
  15. flint757

    flint757 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    6,264
    Likes Received:
    197
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2011
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    I'm in 100% agreement with you on this.
     
  16. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    29,155
    Likes Received:
    4,735
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    I thought it was also pretty widely understood that Assad was testing Trump and his desire to stay out of it, immediately before a US-Russia meeting where he thought (especially after Obama, and with Trump an avowed "America First" isolationist) he could get away with it.

    Bostjan, to answer your question - because, after the Cold War, America was the last remaining global superpower, and we have historically been at the leading front of preserving international law. We have the power necessary to do so, and we've set the precident that we will. Pulling back would leave a void, voids breed chaos, and we have enough of that as things stand. With great power comes great responsibility, and all of that.

    You may not LIKE it, but we've defined this as our role in the world for at least the last 30 years, and arguably the last 80 since WWII.
     
  17. flint757

    flint757 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    6,264
    Likes Received:
    197
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2011
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    :rofl:
     
  18. celticelk

    celticelk Enflamed with prayer

    Messages:
    4,386
    Likes Received:
    345
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, MI
    What do I think? I think that as long as Russia is allied with Syria and holds a veto on the Security Council, none of this is happening.
     
  19. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    15,122
    Likes Received:
    3,311
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    I agree. But if the outcome of due process is not what the USA expects, is it cool to bypass it all? I guess that's a rhetorical question. Obviously, that's where the differences of opinions come into play.

    My opinion on that (no one asked :lol: ) is that the USA could play a harder long-term game. Put the thing up at the UN, let Russia veto, prove that the Russian veto is bull, then take away Russia's veto power or over-ride it using the case of them irresponsibly using that power. If they don't play the gambit, you don't win the big points, but you still win the small points in the Syria thing. Meanwhile Assad continues being Assad, but he's probably not going to cool it on fighting ISIS anyway, because, well, ISIS isn't going to cool it until Assad is completely destroyed.
     
  20. celticelk

    celticelk Enflamed with prayer

    Messages:
    4,386
    Likes Received:
    345
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, MI
    There's no mechanism in the UN Charter to deny or override the veto power, and in fact the veto-wielding nations can use that power against amendments to the Charter: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_veto_power#Veto_power_reform.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.