Trump rains hell on Syrian airbase

[-:Undertaker:-]

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.

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?

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.

I'm sorry but what you've just said there is utterly meaningless.

Like an Obama speech. Initially sounds good, but on closer examination hollow and empty.

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.

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.

If you're going to criticise the President, please at least criticise him over something you actually have a criticism about.

[AgnesIO]

A bit OTT.

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?

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.

[Brad]

What do you not like so far?



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. :/

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.
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.

[-:Undertaker:-]

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.

Saying Obama isn't responsible for Libya and Syria is like saying George W Bush isn't responsible for Iraq.

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?

[Landon]

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.

The only thing I agree with haha

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

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.

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.

This isn't something he did.

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.

[-:Undertaker:-]

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, 2013

AGAIN, 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

[Landon]

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, 2013

AGAIN, 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.

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.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I see where you're coming from.

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.

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.

[Landon]

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.

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.

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. :/

[peteyt]

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.