Printable View
Trump says that his opinion on Assad has now changed! Absolutely horrible chemical attack that we saw only days ago where dozens of innocent civilians were murdered and many others injured. Very early this (UK) morning, 59 tomahawk missiles were fired at the exact airbase that carried out the attack, disabling their ability to deliver chemical weapons efficiently and killing at least 7.
Read more for the major details. But man, an awesome development imo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox News
Looks like the neocons are taking over the administration. He's basically done al-Qaeda's work for them by bombing Assad.
Putin right, Trump wrong.
Trump has been wrong every day he has been in office. The amount of disturbance he has caused not only for the world but for the Citizens of America.
No one is safe anymore.
A bit OTT.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad
I'd say the greatest disturbance of the last few years would be the destabilisation of and arming of terror groups in Libya and Syria by the Obama administration which has led to a stalled civil war and an influx of refugees/rapists/terrorists into Europe.
Wouldn't you?
Obama was that close to doing it years ago - 2012.Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
You don't think it was right? If so, why not?
I don't think it is right to destabilise the only vaguely rational force (Assad) that holds Syria together and place the area in the hands of Islamists, no. More broadly, the existence of Syria or non-existence of it as a state matters to British interests... how?Quote:
Originally Posted by Landon
The only great power involved in this which has real interests in the area is Russia and it is at least backing the right side.
I definitely do not think it is OTT. (I'm assuming OTT means,"over the top", as I do not usually use acronyms)Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
I dont think Syria or Libya has ever been stable for the last two decade. So to try and state that during Obama's administration time as the leading cause of the increase of refugees/rapists/terrorists into Europe.
Having people escape from those areas have been happening even before it's been recorded, recognized and reported by the news.
Syria and Libya were very stable states (naturally due to them being iron fisted dictatorships) prior to Obama's meddling in the region and supplying weapons to "rebel fighters" aka Islamic terrorists. So yes, the increase of terrorists/refugees and rapists into European nations is a direct cause of Obama's destabilisation of both Libya and Syria - especially Libya which had sea patrols along her coast in co-operation with European nations like Italy but is now a failed state and has none of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad
Isn't it the case that you're not actually bothered about the issue itself but just like to slate Trump when the guy I assume you liked (Obama) actually created the problem but he gets a free pass from you because he lets two dudes get married, goes on Jimmy Fallon with pre-pared lines and didn't talk about grabbing pussy back in 2005 on Howard Stern? That's what you really mean isn't it.
It irks me when people use the bad foreign policy of US Presidents to slate/support one over another because most of the time they're not actually criticising the foreign policy itself but using it in orders to criticise or support their preferred/disliked President.
To begin off: I am Canadian, so the presidency really doesn't bother me on a personal level but it does effect me on a national level. And as far as saying that Obama has single handedly caused the outbreaks in the Middle East is bogus. You've got to have more years supplying to those countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
The reasons I would have wanted to see Obama in office is because he turned the pages of a new era in North America and allowed for a lot of push in Canada as well as.
So before you start attacking me as an individual, remember that I am not from the US. My views on Trump is based upon what has been happening since he has been in office.
We, in Canada, are having an increase of refugees come into our country not just from Syria but also those from Mexico, and the states as well. But you don't see me calling them terrorists and rapists.
You based your view on these people on one or two events... Or what you have heard from the news.
What do you not like so far?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad
But the second that there is a terrorist attack from a refugee in Canada, you are going to say the same thing that we (conservatives) do as well. :/Quote:
We, in Canada, are having an increase of refugees come into our country not just from Syria but also those from Mexico, and the states as well. But you don't see me calling them terrorists and rapists.
If you'd like to point me to when the trouble began in these countries I would be fascinated to see because the two dates I have of the uprisings and civil wars for Libya & Syria starting is 2011. Obama was in office then, yes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad
I'm sorry but what you've just said there is utterly meaningless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad
Like an Obama speech. Initially sounds good, but on closer examination hollow and empty.
This just proves exactly what I said about people using foreign policy that they barely have any knowledge of to make party political points to attack or to support a Presidency. And it isn't just your side that does it either because Trump made exactly the same points about Syria I am making here now but seems to have now stupidly gone back on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad
If you're going to criticise the President, please at least criticise him over something you actually have a criticism about.
I completely agree with your viewpoint regarding Putin and Syria, however blaming Obama for the failures in the Middle East and North Africa is like blaming Wilhelm Pieck for Nazi Germany. Just doesn't add up.Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
First off the bat is the sign off of the pipe line in Dakota that was once the biggest appeal due to deforestation and is causing more harm than to those residing in that area.Quote:
Originally Posted by Landon
Secondly is the ill choosing of his supreme Court judge. He only appointed Gorsuch because he was very conservative in his views, which would benefit Trump in future comings
Thirdly is his presence as the head of the country has caused a landslide of both racial and discriminate acts of violence towards those who are not white, straight, and middle to high class.
Saying Obama isn't responsible for Libya and Syria is like saying George W Bush isn't responsible for Iraq.Quote:
Originally Posted by AgnesIO
Who encouraged the rebels? Who helped create a rebel alliance out of various anti-regime groups? Who armed them? Who supplied them with weapons & intelligence? Who provided them with no-fly zones? Who weakened Assad/Gaddafi with airstrikes?
The only thing I agree with hahaQuote:
Originally Posted by Brad
As does every president? Obama successfully appointed Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan... Both Democratic. If what you say is the case, you should condemn Obama for appointing those of his own party as well.Quote:
Secondly is the ill choosing of his supreme Court judge. He only appointed Gorsuch because he was very conservative in his views, which would benefit Trump in future comings
This isn't something he did.Quote:
Thirdly is his presence as the head of the country has caused a landslide of both racial and discriminate acts of violence towards those who are not white, straight, and middle to high class.
Again, we could accredit Obama to the same thing. We blamed him for example for not toning down the BLM movement and not doing anything about the riots, and you blamed Trump for the 'racism' of not letting refugees from sensitive countries into the US.
I must take you to task also though @Landon;
Here's what Trump was saying when I agreed with him (below) but you now describe this as an 'awesome' development. Why?
What I am saying is stay out of Syria.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 4, 2013AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA - IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 5, 2013
I see where you're coming from.Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
The way I look at it is the fact that he supported Assad or at least didn't mind him at the time right? You heard how he said his "opinion changed" on Assad when the chemical attacks happened?
I think that it's a good idea that he has an opposite stance on Assad now. Horrible attacks, great counter that Trump made imo regardless of his previous stances on Assad.
Dunno if that makes sense.
Not sure how a chemical attack can make one change their mind on the Assad regime. I mean, did he believe the Assad regime was one of honey, butterflies and rivers of chocolate prior to this chemical attack? It's a horrible regime like most. A chemical attack however - of which there are already believed to have been throughout the civil war by various sides - is not reason to intervene in an incredibly complex civil war that the United States has no interests in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Landon
More generally I have never understood the moral disgust and outrage at people dying in war via chemical attacks but the seemingly perfectly morally acceptable way of dying in war via shrapnel from bombs, shootings, beheadings and burning to death in an airstrike. Why choking to death via a nerve agent is any worse than any of those listed i'll never quite know or understand. War is Hell.
So I don't buy his reason for the sudden conversion to Obama foreign policy. Unless he didn't actually oppose Obama's disasterous policy because he had actually given it any thought but more so just to oppose Obama for the sake of it. Very very disappointing.
Hmmm yeah I definitely can see both sides of the story. War is hell.Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
I'll come to your point of view and give what I think is a little rough:
* Why 59 missiles were needed to take out chemical weapons, I'm not sure.
* Why exactly he decided to do it? Don't know.
* Why did he not at least give them a warning or tell them they had better back off? Not sure
I don't know how it feels to die (obviously) via any of these methods. But based on a decision if it came down to it between choking/burning to death and exploding, I'd probably go exploding. :/
I remember when there was the last bombing debate. A lot of the people who agreed to it then where the same people demanding we took in refuges for the mess we'd created.
Exactly right.‘Syria will implode in a bloodbath if Assad goes now’ - says former UK ambassador to Syria Peter Ford #newsnight pic.twitter.com/nTF0j8HnKt
— BBC Newsnight (@BBCNewsnight) April 10, 2017
A GBU-43 has just been dropped on a known ISIS area in eastern Afghanistan, meant to target isis tunnels and fighters.
One of largest bombs in the US's arsenal short of Nuclear weapons.
21,000 lbs.
I guess this is what happens when you give someone like him power :P.
At least he's doing his best to clean up the mess that Obama created by withdrawing the majority of US presence from the middle east.Quote:
Originally Posted by despect
You can like what he's doing in terms of military action or you don't have too, but something needs to be done whether it be from the countries that are there or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Landon
Afghanistan is a total disaster. We don't know what we are doing. They are, in addition to everything else, robbing us blind.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 12, 2012Let’s get out of Afghanistan. Our troops are being killed by the Afghanis we train and we waste billions there. Nonsense! Rebuild the USA.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 11, 2013We should leave Afghanistan immediately. No more wasted lives. If we have to go back in, we go in hard & quick. Rebuild the US first.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 1, 2013https://68.media.tumblr.com/e4f2dc01...rprvls_500.gifWe have wasted an enormous amount of blood and treasure in Afghanistan. Their government has zero appreciation. Let's get out!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 21, 2013
Exactly. Turned out horribly didn't it. It's time to change the mess that he and Obama agreed upon.Quote:
Originally Posted by lemons
Update:
Trump's approval not needed in MOAB drop. Top US Commander on the ground gave the all clear.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...cials-say.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Fox News
How much million did it cost to kill those 39 people?
Nothing compared to the billions that the taxpayers pay for corrupted systems like welfare lolQuote:
Originally Posted by scottish
That doesn't justify it lol.. guess a similar justification would be nothing compared to the hundreds of millions they'll be paying to build a wall?
Surely welfare systems are the opposite of corrupt, in that it is those who are better off are doing something which doesn't directly benefit themselves? Corrupt would be removing welfare systems to cut taxes for those who provide some kind of payment or offer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Landon
That's the problem. We are forced to pay for the welfare system. We don't have a choice - other than I guess not paying taxes lolQuote:
Originally Posted by dbgtz
By that logic any government spending is corrupt and the nation state should be abolished and we adopt anarchism. I wonder what you think of Trumps spending on all his golf weekends...Quote:
Originally Posted by Landon
So long as nobody in power benefits from implementing welfare then there is no corruption and even if the opposite is true, it's debatable. Looking at welfare specifically for the UK, the only benefits that really come under question is housing benefit due to the somewhat large volume of private landlords in the HoC. No one company or individual would really gain anything from implementing job seekers allowance, disability allowance, carers allowance etc. With the coming of automation too, we should be looking to increase the welfare state since jobs will be in decline. That, or the government funding of more social based jobs that automation can't really replace.
Are you saying that we let the corrupt tax programs continue or at least not make much of an attempt to fix them?Quote:
Originally Posted by dbgtz
The bottom line for me is this. Welfare is okay. So long as there is no abuse. And we all know that probably couldn't happen in the world we live in.
But how is it corrupt? I think you're getting confused about what corruption is. Corruption can only occur with those who have power, who are typically not the ones who receive the benefits of welfare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Landon
There are some issues where people can claim a lot of money in benefits and live on it, sure. But they're a tiny minority and as said before, we're likely to be heading in that general direction anyway.
It's also not that big of an issue in the grand scheme of things. In the UK, £172.3 billion was spent on all welfare in 2015/16 where an estimated £1.9 billion was fraudulent (1.1%). (https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...-estimates.pdf). Compare this to £2.7 billion lost through tax avoidance and £4.4 billion through tax evasion (https://fullfact.org/economy/tax-avoidance-evasion-uk/).
In short, it does a lot more good than it does bad.
£2 billion is still a lot of money though :o And that's still a lot of people that have abused the system. I definitely do agree that taxing is a much bigger issue - no problem there. I think welfare might be more of a moral issue to me though haha. That's why it ticks me off.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbgtz
It's a thousandth of a percent of UK gdp. It's really not a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Landon