Poll of the Day > Trump's missile strike in Syria was a diversionary tactic

(+) Yeah! (+)

To get us to stop talking about Russia.

To see how the media and public would react.

To show he's in charge and not Bannon.

As a first step to lifting sanctions off Russia.
---

this dude has elevated being wrong to an art form

What was Obama's missile strike in Syria in 2013?

berniepanders posted...

this dude has elevated being wrong to an art form

And yet you never explained how any of my points were wrong.

SkynyrdRocker posted...

What was Obama's missile strike in Syria in 2013?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/politics/obama-syria-airstrikes-trump/
---

Remember when Assad killed civilians every month for the last, idk, 10 years? Remember?
---

Erik_P posted...

SkynyrdRocker posted...

What was Obama's missile strike in Syria in 2013?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/politics/obama-syria-airstrikes-trump/

So Trump did what Obama should have done. What's the point of drawing a line in the sand if you just go "oh darn it" when they cross it?

Obama had an actual understanding of the political ramifications if he did what Trump had done. Trump isn't anywhere near as smart.
---

Erik_P posted...

And yet you never explained how any of my points were wrong.

they're complete fiction - total speculation informed by rabid delusional bias on your part with absolutely no facts to support them

this is the full extent to which i am going to bother with your nonsense here

If the Patriots lose the Super Bowl, I will close my account - Obama

SkynyrdRocker posted...

If the Patriots lose the Super Bowl, I will close my account - Obama

- Michael Scott
---

Erik_P posted...

To get us to stop talking about Russia.

To see how the media and public would react.

To show he's in charge and not Bannon.

As a first step to lifting sanctions off Russia.

You're talking about Trump...

And thinking he did something for a deeper reason.

Trump.

Care to rethink this?

Eric if someone actually was able to deconstruct your points with well thought out arguments and sources would you actually shut the fuck up?

they're complete fiction - total speculation informed by rabid delusional bias on your part with absolutely no facts to support them

this is the full extent to which i am going to bother with your nonsense here

Well, let's see here. Trump told Russia before Congress what he was going to do. That's a proven fact. Only 9 planes got hit, and none of them were being used. That's a proven fact (of course, if you read garbage like Breitbart that total will be higher).

Trump has been trying for months to get us to stop talking about the investigation involving him and Russia. He made that bullshit claim about Obama wiretapping him, he tweets a bunch of nonsense any time a major story is about to drop. This is just the latest thing he's done to get us to stop talking about Russia. He doesn't give a shit about Syrian babies; if he did, he wouldn't ban them from the country.

The media sucked Trump's dick and claimed he was presidential for bombing a country. He wants to be liked and praised and that's what he got.

It's not a coincidence that after Bannon was removed from the NSC Trump dropped those bombs. There's word that Trump is pissed that people were calling Bannon the president. By dropping those bombs he proves he's in charge and not Bannon.

Right now, Russia is pissed at Trump. Which might all be an act. And then Trump decides to "smooth things over" with them by lifting sanctions, which is what he promised Russia he would do if they helped get him elected.
---

that wasn't an invitation for you to expand your baseless speculation

Go_Totodile posted...

Eric if someone actually was able to deconstruct your points with well thought out arguments and sources would you actually shut the fuck up?

he might say he would, but he'd welch

BlackScythe0 posted...

Erik_P posted...

To get us to stop talking about Russia.

To see how the media and public would react.

To show he's in charge and not Bannon.

As a first step to lifting sanctions off Russia.

You're talking about Trump...

And thinking he did something for a deeper reason.

Trump.

Care to rethink this?

He wants to be liked because he's a narcissist. He just so happened to be liked after he did the bombing.
---

Erik_P posted...

BlackScythe0 posted...

Erik_P posted...

To get us to stop talking about Russia.

To see how the media and public would react.

To show he's in charge and not Bannon.

As a first step to lifting sanctions off Russia.

You're talking about Trump...

And thinking he did something for a deeper reason.

Trump.

Care to rethink this?

He wants to be liked because he's a narcissist. He just so happened to be liked after he did the bombing.

By who? I've seen a lot of negativity over it.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Erik_P posted...

BlackScythe0 posted...

Erik_P posted...

To get us to stop talking about Russia.

To see how the media and public would react.

To show he's in charge and not Bannon.

As a first step to lifting sanctions off Russia.

You're talking about Trump...

And thinking he did something for a deeper reason.

Trump.

Care to rethink this?

He wants to be liked because he's a narcissist. He just so happened to be liked after he did the bombing.

By who? I've seen a lot of negativity over it.

Republicans, CNN, Fox.
---

Erik you just posted a CNN article criticizing Trump for doing this...

SkynyrdRocker posted...

Erik you just posted a CNN article criticizing Trump for doing this...

Did you even read the article? Because I did. You asked the difference between what Trump did and what Obama did. That's what the article was about.
---

While Russia is aligned with the US in the fight against ISIS -- and Trump has previously suggested the two countries should work together to defeat the militant group -- Russia has helped prop up the Assad regime militarily. There were Russians at the base the US struck, according to a US defense official.
One of the concerns about striking Syria from many US lawmakers is that it risks starting a proxy war -- or worse -- with Russia.
Another key difference between Trump's strikes against the Assad regime and the ISIS airstrikes is the legal authorization for carrying them out.
Both the Obama administration and the Trump administration have relied on the war authorization that Congress passed after the September, 11, 2001 attacks to fight al-Qaeda across the globe.
Both administrations have argued that ISIS is an offshoot of al-Qaeda, but the Assad regime is unconnected to that, and lawmakers were quickly calling for a new war authorization for the latest strikes late Thursday evening.
"Assad is a brutal dictator who must be held accountable for his actions," Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine said in a statement. "But President Trump has launched a military strike against Syria without a vote of Congress. The Constitution says war must be declared by Congress."
When Obama considered launching airstrikes in Syria against 2013, he decided to go to Congress before striking, and the resistance he faced there convinced the president not to hit Assad.
The Trump administration, however, said Thursday that the airstrikes were not a change in Syria policy.
"I would not in any way attempt to extrapolate that to a change in our policy or posture relative to our military activities in Syria today," Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said. "There has been no change in that status."

This doesn't seem like a glowing endorsement to me.

I'm hoping war w/ Syria will be a distraction for Trump from the destruction of our environment, scientific research, and basic human rights domestically, if anything...

SkynyrdRocker posted...

Erik_P posted...

SkynyrdRocker posted...

What was Obama's missile strike in Syria in 2013?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/politics/obama-syria-airstrikes-trump/

So Trump did what Obama should have done. What's the point of drawing a line in the sand if you just go "oh darn it" when they cross it?

The point was having a reason to go to war (in some form...bombing the shit out of a country is war, even if we put no boots on the ground and 99% of U.S. citizens go about their lives like nothing's different).
So he asked Congress to sanction military action, as the constitution requires. And they chickened out of being personally accountable for a possible war.

Obama couldn't win. If he follows the constitution, he's weak. If he had made strikes against Assad w/o Congressional approval, they'd have called him a dictator. No matter what he does, people like you would shout that he's wrong.

Wouldn't even dignify me with a response lol.

Go_Totodile posted...

Wouldn't even dignify me with a response lol.

I thought it was a rhetorical question. My answer to your question is "maybe."
---

streamofthesky posted...

The point was having a reason to go to war (in some form...bombing the shit out of a country is war, even if we put no boots on the ground and 99% of U.S. citizens go about their lives like nothing's different).
So he asked Congress to sanction military action, as the constitution requires. And they chickened out of being personally accountable for a possible war.

Obama couldn't win. If he follows the constitution, he's weak. If he had made strikes against Assad w/o Congressional approval, they'd have called him a dictator. No matter what he does, people like you would shout that he's wrong.

I think I'd have supported him acting in Syria. I don't know. We intervened in Iraq and it's a mess. We haven't intervened in Syria and it's a mess. The Middle East, man...

SkynyrdRocker posted...

streamofthesky posted...

The point was having a reason to go to war (in some form...bombing the shit out of a country is war, even if we put no boots on the ground and 99% of U.S. citizens go about their lives like nothing's different).
So he asked Congress to sanction military action, as the constitution requires. And they chickened out of being personally accountable for a possible war.

Obama couldn't win. If he follows the constitution, he's weak. If he had made strikes against Assad w/o Congressional approval, they'd have called him a dictator. No matter what he does, people like you would shout that he's wrong.

I think I'd have supported him acting in Syria. I don't know. We intervened in Iraq and it's a mess. We haven't intervened in Syria and it's a mess. The Middle East, man...

I still think the best way to handle the Middle East is to just let them fight each other, only stepping in to protect vulnerable minority populations, like the Yazidi (sorry if I spelled that wrong).

I remember when a community of Yazidi Christians were trapped on some mountain by ISIS, and we did end up helping them. But stuff like that... Bomb the ever loving shit out of ISIS when they march towards that mountain. They head Assad's way...do nothing to them. Guide them, let them figure out the path of least resistance.

streamofthesky posted...

I still think the best way to handle the Middle East is to just let them fight each other

if they would stick to just fighting each other this would definitely be the best way to handle it, but at this point enough resentment towards the west has built up that groups like isis and al-qaeda before them will never stop coming at the west

berniepanders posted...

streamofthesky posted...

I still think the best way to handle the Middle East is to just let them fight each other

if they would stick to just fighting each other this would definitely be the best way to handle it, but at this point enough resentment towards the west has built up that groups like isis and al-qaeda before them will never stop coming at the west

But in general that is what Obama did. They're fighting each other in Egypt, Syria, Lybia, Yemen, etc.. We drone bomb, but didn't send in armies. He kept us out of those messes and yeah they're hives of anarchy and destruction, but...we're not personally stuck there at least. ISIS tries to conduct terror plots in our country, but so did al-qaeda and others before them already. Same drill, gotta invest in security at airports, sporting events, etc.. I venture that ISIS would've aimed to strike at us in our own country whether we got involved at all or not. The prestige among terror groups of killing Americans on their own home turf is significant.
It's not perfect, they do try to divert from killing each other to kill us, but Obama did about as good a job keeping their guns pointed at each other as one can.

I wonder what conspiracy the people will cook up when the next president gets elected
---

streamofthesky posted...

berniepanders posted...

streamofthesky posted...

I still think the best way to handle the Middle East is to just let them fight each other

if they would stick to just fighting each other this would definitely be the best way to handle it, but at this point enough resentment towards the west has built up that groups like isis and al-qaeda before them will never stop coming at the west

But in general that is what Obama did. They're fighting each other in Egypt, Syria, Lybia, Yemen, etc.. We drone bomb, but didn't send in armies. He kept us out of those messes and yeah they're hives of anarchy and destruction, but...we're not personally stuck there at least. ISIS tries to conduct terror plots in our country, but so did al-qaeda and others before them already. Same drill, gotta invest in security at airports, sporting events, etc.. I venture that ISIS would've aimed to strike at us in our own country whether we got involved at all or not. The prestige among terror groups of killing Americans on their own home turf is significant.
It's not perfect, they do try to divert from killing each other to kill us, but Obama did about as good a job keeping their guns pointed at each other as one can.

i'd have to say that's a fair assessment