Poll of the Day > airstrike on syria - whose side are you on?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Gentlemen - pick your sides.
---

I'll take a third option - it's a good idea as long as there's some follow-through. If Trump thinks he can just bomb Syria flat and that will solve the problem, I suspect that will actually wind up being worse in the long run than doing nothing at all.

The US has this really bad habit of killing dictators, then expecting a fully flourishing democracy to magically spring up in their place. Assad needs to be taken out, no question there - but the million dollar question is who's going to replace him.
---

Mixed feelings. It seems like it's a rash, ineffective response to an alleged crime against humanity. However, I'm not sure that he was moral right to do so

Likewise, I'm not sure that the US is morally right in attempting to enforce its will across the globe by removing Assad considering that the determination of a nation's government should be settled by the participants of that nation rather than outsiders like the US, UN, and Russia who are all exploiting the region for personal advantage.
---

Trump basically took a shot at the guys fighting isis.
---

PowerSurgeX posted...

Trump basically took a shot at the guys fighting isis.

Syria doesn't really care about Daesh at the moment. Why would they? The US is busy fighting that conflict. Syria and Russia are more focused on the more moderate rebels that are backed by the international community. Once those groups are crushed, Assad will turn his attention towards Daesh but in the interim they're useful in an "enemy of my enemy" way.
---

I'm on the there's so much classified intel and realpolitik going on that I have no access to that I can't possibly make an informed judgment on whether or not it was a good or bad thing. Not to mention the fact that I'm not really up to speed with the publicly known info about the Syrian civil war.

The realm. Someone must.
---

darkknight109 posted...

PowerSurgeX posted...

Trump basically took a shot at the guys fighting isis.

Syria doesn't really care about Daesh at the moment. Why would they? The US is busy fighting that conflict. Syria and Russia are more focused on the more moderate rebels that are backed by the international community. Once those groups are crushed, Assad will turn his attention towards Daesh but in the interim they're useful in an "enemy of my enemy" way.

Actually, they DO care about ISIS since ISIS is one of the largest groups engaged in fighting them. More importantly, "moderate rebels" are like unicorns; ie, childish fantasy. The "moderates" we've armed time and time again more into violent militants, terrorists, and dictators. That's not even counting that many of the weapons wind up in ISIS's hands anyway.
---

Looks like Trump is winning the popular vote here.
---

LEGALLY the US is in the wrong. Even if Assad is breaking humanitarian laws, bombing the ones who are ('legally') in control of a country, without declaring war, is a very bad thing.
Should Assad be allowed to gas his own people? No. Should America be above the law and bomb Syria? Not unless they want to stir up trouble.

The way I see it is that it'll cause more trouble then it's fixed. Sure, they can no longer send out chemical attacks from that single base, but there's probably other bases. But now Putin is angry, America looks bad to Syria and it also looks like America bombed the enemy of ISIS.


I think the attack was too rushed, too "quick let's show them we mean business". For something attempting to end conflict, it looks like it's going to cause more conflict.
---

This solved nothing and escalated tensions. Morally, it was just, but the end game has to be considered and clearly wasn't. Let's face it, most Syrians would probably take back the whole rebellion thing if they could. It certainly hasn't made life better for anyone and likely won't for the foreseeable future.
---

I'm on my side, and think the whole thing is just fucking stupid and should never have happened on oh so many sides going back years and years and years....
---

It's WMD all over again.
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

This solved nothing and escalated tensions.

Well, it sent a message in regards to the use of chemical weapons which was ultimately the key point here. Whether or not it actually stops the alleged use, Assad will be more hesitant to use the weapons.

PowerSurgeX posted...

It's WMD all over again.

Except that the chemical weapons were independently confirmed by the press rather than a shaky government report and, rather than spark a ground war, it just led to airstrikes against military facilities including ones associated with the attack.
---

I side with the hidden elder god, secretly manipulating events through time and harvesting Souls into a never ending wheel of death
---

PowerSurgeX wrote:

Trump basically took a shot at the guys fighting isis.

Exactly.
The guys fighting against not only ISIS, but also against the "moderate" terrorists too.
(What the loathsome establishment media (and their horde of loathsome war-loving neocon columnists, who never seem to get fired), always call "moderate rebels".)



Zeus wrote:

Actually, they DO care about ISIS since ISIS is one of the largest groups engaged in fighting them. More importantly, "moderate rebels" are like unicorns; ie, childish fantasy. The "moderates" we've armed time and time again more into violent militants, terrorists, and dictators. That's not even counting that many of the weapons wind up in ISIS's hands anyway.

Indeed.
I was continually greatly offended that Obama had been actually helping these "moderate" terrorists. And now Trump appears to be turning total hypocrite and doing the same. >.<



TheGreatNoodles wrote:

But now Putin is angry, America looks bad to Syria and it also looks like America bombed the enemy of ISIS.

That's because America did bomb the enemy of ISIS.
In order to keep this war going.
It had looked like the war had been coming closer to coming to an end at last, and rightful peace to being restored.
Nothing offends an evil neocon more than the prospect of peace being restored, so they took steps to make sure that the war would be kept going.






All in all, this has really damaged my opinion of Trump. >.<
I used to be one of the biggest Trump-boosters I know. Not anymore.

As with the Ryancare fiasco a few weeks ago; not that it failed (its failing was a very very good thing, and I celebrated that day), but rather that Trump had been appallingly and vociferously backing that horrendous plan.
I hate Obamacare -- and would love for it to be cleanly repealed -- but the Ryancare plan would have been even worse yet.
But at least there, Trump could use rules-lawyering: "I said I would repeal Obamacare. I never made any promise regarding avoiding immediately instituting an Obamacare 2.0, something extremely similar but even worse yet, right afterward!"

Here, on the other hand, he's shown himself plain as day to be a total hypocrite, siding with the evil neocon warmongers.




Although, please remember: it's not like Hillary would have been any better. Hillary would certainly have been even worse. Had Hillary won, there would definitely be several tens of thousands of American troops on the ground in combat in Syria already, or more. >.<
On the wrong side, of course, helping the "moderate" terrorists, to turn the country into another Libya, violent-anarchy.

Same for any of the Republican primary opponents; except for Rand Paul, who was out early.



Just sad. ;.;
---