Russia in Syria and US Missles

[Phelphor, of the Deep]

Russia in Syria: It's all about their money plus, oil. Syria government willing to kill their own citizens to improve their chemical weapons. What's your opinion on Russia in Syria plus US missles attacks? What's your stance on the whole situation? Did trump over step his bound or is this the right call? Let's have a good debate!

[Sunshine Jesse]

This is just more world police garbage that we have no business getting involved on. It's not our job to "send messages" or anything of the like, and it never has been.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

This is just more world police garbage that we have no business getting involved on. It's not our job to "send messages" or anything of the like, and it never has been.

There are US troops on the ground who would be in danger though 

[Dad]

The President said several years ago that the U.S. would gain nothing out of attacking Syria.  What changed that and why?

 

Furthermore, how deeply was Congress involved in this decision?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

The President said several years ago that the U.S. would gain nothing out of attacking Syria.  What changed that and why?

 

Furthermore, how deeply was Congress involved in this decision?

I agree with this kinda. I don't think we should get involved in ANY war unless (1) they kill Americans, in which case make the sand glow (2) poses a threat to America

 

The Admin had a weakish excuse that it would only be a matter of time since Gas Weapons killed American soldiers on the ground. But POTUS said he wanted to pull the ground troops out of Syria at latest by 6 months...so there's some inconsistency there. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-tries-to-appear-strong-in-syria-even-as-he-plans-to-withdraw/2018/04/14/4bb75fe6-400f-11e8-8d53-eba0ed2371cc_story.html

 

The bigger picture is he likely wants to draw distinction to President Obama. Obama didn't get aggressive when Assad used Chem Weapons, and Trump doesn't want to be seen as weak. Also Russiagate all but means that if he doesn't act, he'll be accused of doing Putin's bidding.

 

It's not an ideal situation, but I think he played his cards the best he could

[vla1ne]

Russia in Syria: It's all about their money plus, oil. Syria government willing to kill their own citizens to improve their chemical weapons. What's your opinion on Russia in Syria plus US missles attacks? What's your stance on the whole situation? Did trump over step his bound or is this the right call? Let's have a good debate!

personally, america would be better off staying out of it. very little good comes of jumping into a finished business, assad regime has already won, missile strikes are only going to escalate a situation that is more than likely on the decline already. fighting with russia over the assad regime in syria is equivalent to committing americans, russians, and even more syrians (3 parties at minimum) to death on a dick measuring contest. he's already jumped nose first into the water, our country is not the police of the world, and acting this way ignores the internal stress that our country is already facing. before we look elsewhere, we REALLY need to get out sheet together here. pull our boys back, close up the war shop, and clean our own house, before going over and fighting the distant neighbors over what our other distant neighbors are doing.

[UltimateIRS]

I'm all for getting out of Syria, but chemical weapons aren't something you just let people develop. I think Mattis made the right call.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I'm all for getting out of Syria, but chemical weapons aren't something you just let people develop. I think Mattis made the right call.

There are American soldiers there. Nothing is more important than their lives. My issue is nobody knows if Assad did it

[vla1ne]

My issue is nobody knows if Assad did it

this. assad has no reason to gas the people, they've already all but won the war. only the dumbest of people would gas their people, knowing what that implies, and assad, though tyrannical, has never been shown to be that stupid (that's the whole reason they're actually winning their civil war) before attacking another country for something they haven't actually done, establish firm proof, and a reasonable motive. anything otherwise, and we would be better off gtfo the country, and focusing on our own issues.

[Phelphor, of the Deep]

bump

[Phelphor, of the Deep]

BUMP

[vla1ne]

BUMP

there's not really too much more to say really, until more is brought forth on the evidence point. bombing syria might provide catharsis, and make him seem decisive, but it does nothing for the underlying problems, the two most prominent ones being the welfare of the people (wherin bombing isn't going to improve the overall welfare of any country) and the question of was it actually assad doing the bombing, which is debatable simply based on the current status of the war. there's smaller nuances that could arguably be dug into

 

[spoiler=For example]

The bigger picture is he likely wants to draw distinction to President Obama. Obama didn't get aggressive when Assad used Chem Weapons, and Trump doesn't want to be seen as weak. Also Russiagate all but means that if he doesn't act, he'll be accused of doing Putin's bidding.

seeming weak isn't something he should be worried about, destabilizing what is, by all appearances on its way to becoming a (relatively) stable government again, is something that needs to be questioned before any of that. obama took action based not on past presidents, but on the current situation, agree or disagree with the actions or results, the thought patter that came with it is something that can't be faulted on it's own merits. trump might be obama's inheritor, but that doesn't mean he can let the past drag him into making terrible moves that could be easily avoided. worst that might happen is people laugh at him not attacking, who cares? finding out the proper culprit(s)/target(s), before actually firing, is by far the smarter move to make.

 

 

 

 

but that does nothing to enhance the picture of the situation itself, merely providing a backdrop for what we already know to have happened, with no relevant details

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

there's not really too much more to say really, until more is brought forth on the evidence point. bombing syria might provide catharsis, and make him seem decisive, but it does nothing for the underlying problems, the two most prominent ones being the welfare of the people (wherin bombing isn't going to improve the overall welfare of any country) and the question of was it actually assad doing the bombing, which is debatable simply based on the current status of the war. there's smaller nuances that could arguably be dug into

 

[spoiler=For example]

seeming weak isn't something he should be worried about, destabilizing what is, by all appearances on its way to becoming a (relatively) stable government again, is something that needs to be questioned before any of that. obama took action based not on past presidents, but on the current situation, agree or disagree with the actions or results, the thought patter that came with it is something that can't be faulted on it's own merits. trump might be obama's inheritor, but that doesn't mean he can let the past drag him into making terrible moves that could be easily avoided. worst that might happen is people laugh at him not attacking, who cares? finding out the proper culprit(s)/target(s), before actually firing, is by far the smarter move to make.

 

 

 

 

but that does nothing to enhance the picture of the situation itself, merely providing a backdrop for what we already know to have happened, with no relevant details

His hands are tied, he has to be hard on Russia before midterms

[vla1ne]

His hands are tied, he has to be hard on Russia before midterms

debatable, but understandable. but this is debates, so i'll debate it.

 

being hard on russia is something i can agree with. if only to ensure russia doesn't stick it's fingers into more than we can chew. considering we've often on opposite ends of the spectrum, and have had more than a few skirmishes that have lead to bad blood, keeping them and their potential allies on their toes is always something that can be respected, but my argument is that when the waters get murky, (assuming, as with syria in this case, that we're in no clear or present danger) we would do better waiting till the dust clears, and finding the correct target, instead of kneejerking the trigger and risking weakening a country that has the potential to ally with us down the line. firing missiles into a country has consequences, and whether they come now or down the line, i'd rather not build the backlash any higher than necessary, which striking a country that has potentially done nothing wrong, tends to do.