Trump has ordered strikes against Syria

if Obama decided to pick his nose it would be better than any decision made by trump.

“In August 2013, a chemical attack in the eastern Ghouta suburb of Damascus killed more than 1,500 people, including hundreds of children. Horrific images circulated.

Obama gave a speech saying the U.S. should act against Syria. But he said Congress should authorize any military action.”

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/13/602375500/history-of-u-s-responses-to-chemical-weapons-attacks-in-syria

Obama has been criticized for "drawing a red line" and then not acting when it was crossed. I do not think the critics have been clear on whether the mistake was drawing the line in the first place or whether it was not acting.

BCC said:

tjohn said:

There's plenty of precedent and none of it constitutional.

Unfortunately for you , Senator  Schumer, said the attack was appropriate. His concern was that we not get involved further in that mess. ETA for correction

Pretty sure Schumer wasn't there for the making of the Constitution. 

LOST said:
Obama has been criticized for "drawing a red line" and then not acting when it was crossed. I do not think the critics have been clear on whether the mistake was drawing the line in the first place or whether it was not acting.

For me, it was making it in the first place.

Smedley said:
LOST, I’d define a knee-jerk Trump hater as someone whose loathing for Trump is such that that person is unable to detach that loathing from anything he does as president, and as a result every opinion or viewpoint on any issue is colored by the loathing.  For example, if North Korea - US talks happen and go well and NK truly denuclearizes — a knee-jerk Trump hater would cite Stormy Daniels. If the US economy were to be strong for 4 or 8 years — a knee-jerk Trump hater would cite Trump’s response to Charlottesville. If trump   pressure results in China becoming a fairer trading partner — a knee-jerk trump hater would cite their opinion on the quality of his character (or lack thereof). I believe there are a lot of knee-jerk trump haters on this board.  

Forget about your what-if future hypotheticals.  He’s been president for more than a year and in the public eye for many more than that.  

Name three things he has done which might counter the loathing any of us have for him.  

I’m not going there. I don’t support Trump who I think is pretty much an embarrassment and a jacka$$ overall. But at the same time, he is the president and he has to make decisions on a million different issues. Not all of what he does is awful, and I’m willing to assess things on an issue-by-issue basis rather than conclude everything trump does is awful because he’s trump.

 As I mentioned, I think the air strikes on Syria were a reasonable response to the situation over there. 

You can continue to spin your nonsense, but when the leader of the opposition, who has condemned almost everything you have done, comes out and says you acted appropriately it is important and newsworthy.

BCC said:
You can continue to spin your nonsense, but when the leader of the opposition, who has condemned almost everything you have done, comes out and says you acted appropriately it is important and newsworthy.

It may be "important and newsworthy" and wrong.

See: Invasion of Iraq.

The other "leader of the opposition":

Washington, D.C. – Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi issued this statement after President Trump launched airstrikes against the Syrian regime, following a brutal chemical weapons attack on civilians in Douma:

“This latest chemical weapons attack against the Syrian people was a brutally inhumane war crime that demands a strong, smart and calculated response.  One night of airstrikes is not a substitute for a clear, comprehensive Syria strategy.

“The President must come to Congress and secure an Authorization for Use of Military Force by proposing a comprehensive strategy with clear objectives that keep our military safe and avoid collateral damage to innocent civilians.

“President Trump must also hold Putin accountable for his enabling of the Assad regime’s atrocities against the Syrian people.”

Smedley said:
I’m not going there. I don’t support Trump who I think is pretty much an embarrassment and a jacka$$ overall. But at the same time, he is the president and he has to make decisions on a million different issues. Not all of what he does is awful, and I’m willing to assess things on an issue-by-issue basis rather than conclude everything trump does is awful because he’s trump.  As I mentioned, I think the air strikes on Syria were a reasonable response to the situation over there. 

at least a few of us were also critical of Obama's invasion of Libya without Congressional authorization.  The fact that presidents since the passage of the AUMF after 9/11 have used it to justify any use of military force doesn't make it right or Constitutional.  At some point, Congress needs to push back on an executive branch that has essentially been out of control for the past 15 years when it comes to using the military.

With the caveat that no two situations are exactly alike, here are results from ABC/Washington Post polls in 2013 and 2017 regarding strikes against Syria (threatened by Obama, ordered by Trump) in response to chemical attacks:

Support among Democrats in 2013: 38 percent. Last year: 37 percent.

Support among Republicans in 2013: 22 percent. Last year: 86 percent.

DaveSchmidt said:
With the caveat that no two situations are exactly alike, here are results from ABC/Washington Post polls in 2013 and 2017 regarding strikes against Syria (threatened by Obama, ordered by Trump) in response to chemical attacks:
Support among Democrats in 2013: 38 percent. Last year: 37 percent. Support among Republicans in 2013: 22 percent. Last year: 86 percent.

I believe this is where BCC replies “tell that to Chuck Schumer.”

DaveSchmidt said:
With the caveat that no two situations are exactly alike, here are results from ABC/Washington Post polls in 2013 and 2017 regarding strikes against Syria (threatened by Obama, ordered by Trump) in response to chemical attacks:
Support among Democrats in 2013: 38 percent. Last year: 37 percent. Support among Republicans in 2013: 22 percent. Last year: 86 percent.

Like Lemmings, Republicans can be counted on. With Obama (not their leader), strikes bad. Trump (their leader), strikes good.

Which is a major strength the right wing. They unite and can be counted on to get out and vote. Hate and fear, powerful motivators.

this tells so much about the R's. They really are a feckless group of people.  And this is far from the only poll that shows the same thing.

DaveSchmidt said:
With the caveat that no two situations are exactly alike, here are results from ABC/Washington Post polls in 2013 and 2017 regarding strikes against Syria (threatened by Obama, ordered by Trump) in response to chemical attacks:

Support among Democrats in 2013: 38 percent. Last year: 37 percent.
Support among Republicans in 2013: 22 percent. Last year: 86 percent.

why is Schumer's opinion (D-Israel) so important here?

I'd like to hear anyone's justification for this action. Smedley? BCC?

Because no matter how you look at it, it was bad decision.

This is the perfect justification tweet  which exactly describes why we did this. It is also bone-jarringly stupid.

drummerboy said:
this tells so much about the R's. They really are a feckless group of people.  And this is far from the only poll that shows the same thing.

DaveSchmidt said:
With the caveat that no two situations are exactly alike, here are results from ABC/Washington Post polls in 2013 and 2017 regarding strikes against Syria (threatened by Obama, ordered by Trump) in response to chemical attacks:

Support among Democrats in 2013: 38 percent. Last year: 37 percent.
Support among Republicans in 2013: 22 percent. Last year: 86 percent.

Trumpism isn't based on any principles. It's a cult of personality. Trump famously said that if he shot a person on 5th Avenue his base would still be with him. I suggest that if Trump came out for universal single-payer health care his base would still support him.

ridski said:

DaveSchmidt said:
With the caveat that no two situations are exactly alike, here are results from ABC/Washington Post polls in 2013 and 2017 regarding strikes against Syria (threatened by Obama, ordered by Trump) in response to chemical attacks:
Support among Democrats in 2013: 38 percent. Last year: 37 percent. Support among Republicans in 2013: 22 percent. Last year: 86 percent.

I believe this is where BCC replies “tell that to Chuck Schumer.”

Schumer? No, this is where BCC comes in and reminds Ridski of the UK, and France. which supported Trump with their military. It's where BCC also reminds Ridsski of Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia Qater and the other nations back the US.

Is Sen. Kaine a leader of the opposition?

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/383133-kaine-rips-syria-strikes-whats-stopping-trump-from-bombing-iran-north-korea

drummerboy said:
why is Schumer's opinion (D-Israel) so important here? 

it's a hopelessly lazy argument, based on the faulty assumption that every liberal who posts here is a mindless zombie who can't or won't disagree with a Democrat. 

LOST said:

drummerboy said:
this tells so much about the R's. They really are a feckless group of people.  And this is far from the only poll that shows the same thing.

DaveSchmidt said:
With the caveat that no two situations are exactly alike, here are results from ABC/Washington Post polls in 2013 and 2017 regarding strikes against Syria (threatened by Obama, ordered by Trump) in response to chemical attacks:

Support among Democrats in 2013: 38 percent. Last year: 37 percent.
Support among Republicans in 2013: 22 percent. Last year: 86 percent.

Trumpism isn't based on any principles. It's a cult of personality. Trump famously said that if he shot a person on 5th Avenue his base would still be with him. I suggest that if Trump came out for universal single-payer health care his base would still support him.

You're right, Trump's base will support any thing he does. What you have left out is the fact that MOL has it's own cult that is the mirror image of that base, and will trash anything that Trump does or says.

Or tell me you don't know of any one on MOL who fits that description.

BCC said:

You're right, Trump's base will support any thing he does. What you have left out is the fact that MOL has it's own cult that is the mirror image of that base, and will trash anything that Trump does or says. Or tell me you don't know of any one on MOL who fits that description.

Do you have an example of any one on MOL who did "trash anything that Trump does or says", which they would not have trashed, or actually agreed with, if a Democrat did it?

To use the Syria attack as an example of trashing anything that Trump does is kind of dumb, because the arguments against what he did are many and strong, while the justifications are few and weak.

Still waiting to hear the justification. Exactly what good did the attack accomplish?

And why didn't we respond to the 50(?) chemical attacks that have happened in the past year? Because Trump didn't see video of children suffering?

did any of the liberals here trash Obama for not striking at Syria?  I'm pretty sure the answer to that is "no.". Which is congruent with trashing Trump FOR launching an attack. 

The idea behind the strikes on Syria, as I understand, is to let Assad know that there will be repercussions for reprehensible actions like using poison gas on civilians. So the justification is to deter future use of chemical weapons on civilians. That’s a pretty straightforward justification to me. 

Two questions for those who oppose the strikes. One, why is continuing to do nothing beyond saber-rattle at Assad the better option? And two, is there any Assad action that would justify a US / allied strike ? If so, what is the atrocity level that would justify a strike?

drummerboy said:

To use the Syria attack as an example of trashing anything that Trump does is kind of dumb, because the arguments against what he did are many and strong, while the justifications are few and weak.

Still waiting to hear the justification. Exactly what good did the attack accomplish?

And why didn't we respond to the 50(?) chemical attacks that have happened in the past year? Because Trump didn't see video of children suffering?

How can you make that argument when we hit Syria a year ago to punish them for chemical attacks, and since then they've used chemical weapons basically at will in the past year?

It didn't work last time. Why will it work now?

And for the record, I count atrocities by the body count, not by the means of death. We kill civilians, woman and children, every day in our various current military adventures in the M.E. We'd save a lot more civilians by simply withdrawing from every M.E. country and keeping our bombs to ourselves.

Smedley said:
The idea behind the strikes on Syria, as I understand, is to let Assad know that there will be repercussions for reprehensible actions like using poison gas on civilians. So the justification is to deter future use of chemical weapons on civilians. That’s a pretty straightforward justification to me.  Two questions for those who oppose the strikes. One, why is continuing to do nothing beyond saber-rattle at Assad the better option? And two, is there any Assad action that would justify a US / allied strike ? If so, what is the atrocity level that would justify a strike?

drummerboy said:

To use the Syria attack as an example of trashing anything that Trump does is kind of dumb, because the arguments against what he did are many and strong, while the justifications are few and weak.

Still waiting to hear the justification. Exactly what good did the attack accomplish?

And why didn't we respond to the 50(?) chemical attacks that have happened in the past year? Because Trump didn't see video of children suffering?

an incredibly significant fact is that at the present moment a chemical attack hasn't even been confirmed by evidence. 

https://www.salon.com/2018/04/15/trump-and-allies-approach-world-war-iii-in-syria-on-literally-no-evidence/

@drummerboy different year, different air strikes, different parties involved. I’m not saying this will definitely be effective where the 2017 strike wasn’t, but it’s still better than not doing anything IMO.

Really by your argument if you try to do anything in life and it doesn’t work once, then you should just stop trying.

I don’t disagree with your observations about our broader, long-term involvement in the ME. 

Smedley said:
The idea behind the strikes on Syria, as I understand, is to let Assad know that there will be repercussions for reprehensible actions like using poison gas on civilians. So the justification is to deter future use of chemical weapons on civilians. That’s a pretty straightforward justification to me.  Two questions for those who oppose the strikes. One, why is continuing to do nothing beyond saber-rattle at Assad the better option? And two, is there any Assad action that would justify a US / allied strike ? If so, what is the atrocity level that would justify a strike?

1. Perhaps there is no good option?

2. Atrocity level? I guess if he engaged in the kind of conduct that Burma is engaged in against the Rohingya it might justify an allied strike.

BCC said:

You're right, Trump's base will support any thing he does. What you have left out is the fact that MOL has it's own cult that is the mirror image of that base, and will trash anything that Trump does or says. Or tell me you don't know of any one on MOL who fits that description.

I support his recent announcement that states have the right to set their own marijuana laws and the feds ought not block them.

I'm glad you finally came out in support of something. Normally you just play badly at Contrarian and refuse to answer whether you actually support one position or another.

dave23 said:

I support his recent announcement that states have the right to set their own marijuana laws and the feds ought not block them. 

The issue I have is that even if I support a concept, I know that Trump is a compulsive liar, and what he says likely has no relation to what he eventually does.