Syria

[Tenshot13]

I'm very surprised no one has mentioned this yet.  What's the consensus?  Was this the correct course of action?  Is Trump still in bed with Russia?  I'm not seeing too many people upset about this other than Russia, Iran and China.

• I think it was the correct course of action
• I think this proves Trump does not have Russian links

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

It doesn't mean he doesn't have a Russian connection, he could be using it as a distraction.  As for if this is a good move or bad move, does he have a long term plan and solution or is this just fireworks?

[Dave Gray]

I think it was an appropriate response, militarily.  Humanitarian-wise, you should follow up.

[BuccaneerBrad]

Considering he hit a RUSSIAN BUILT base and the chemical weapons were supplied by RUSSIA, he either doesn't have Russian links, or he told Putin to go fuck himself on this one.

[Spider-Dan]

You should also consider that:

1) Trump notified Russia well in advance of the bombing (so as to make sure Russian assets/personnel were not hit, as per the terms of the current U.S./Russian agreement in Syria)
2) Syria's suspected chemical weapons were not targeted
3) The weapons used caused relatively minor damage and planes were flying from that airstrip later that day (the Tomahawk missiles only put holes in the airstrip, but we have weapons that will burrow underneath before exploding, making wide stretches of runway unusable by fracturing them)

This is a dog and pony show.  It has no real impact and serves to change the conversation for a few precious cycles.  This would be the perfect kind of action to take to show that Trump is "standing up" to Russia without actually impeding them at all.

[Dolphster]

You should also consider that:

1) Trump notified Russia well in advance of the bombing (so as to make sure Russian assets/personnel were not hit, as per the terms of the current U.S./Russian agreement in Syria)
2) Syria's suspected chemical weapons were not targeted
3) The weapons used caused relatively minor damage and planes were flying from that airstrip later that day (the Tomahawk missiles only put holes in the airstrip, but we have weapons that will burrow underneath before exploding, making wide stretches of runway unusable by fracturing them)

This is a dog and pony show.  It has no real impact and serves to change the conversation for a few precious cycles.  This would be the perfect kind of action to take to show that Trump is "standing up" to Russia without actually impeding them at all.

Since this kind of stuff is partly in my "line of work", I agree with you on all counts.  It also made for good optics in that it shows that we can take action for humanitarian reasons to appease those crying out for us to do something without actually doing a lot and without putting US lives at risk.  Nothing safer than cranking off a few Tomahawks from out in the ocean. 

Biggest problem in Syria (and much of the middle east) is that there are no "good guys" in the American sense where our culture thinks every international situation has a good guy and a bad guy (just like in the movies, which is where most Americans get their understanding of geo political events).  Pretty much all the groups over there (and there are so many that you need a score card to keep track) are barbaric assholes.  Just some are barbaric assholes to a lesser degree than others.  But having served over there and still involved in my current job, I can assure you there are no "good guys" as we understand the concept of good guys in our culture.  No matter who we "help" over there, we are helping someone who has zero interest in human rights, acceptance of others, etc. 

[Phishfan]

Since this kind of stuff is partly in my "line of work", I agree with you on all counts.  It also made for good optics in that it shows that we can take action for humanitarian reasons to appease those crying out for us to do something without actually doing a lot and without putting US lives at risk.  Nothing safer than cranking off a few Tomahawks from out in the ocean. 

Biggest problem in Syria (and much of the middle east) is that there are no "good guys" in the American sense where our culture thinks every international situation has a good guy and a bad guy (just like in the movies, which is where most Americans get their understanding of geo political events).  Pretty much all the groups over there (and there are so many that you need a score card to keep track) are barbaric assholes.  Just some are barbaric assholes to a lesser degree than others.  But having served over there and still involved in my current job, I can assure you there are no "good guys" as we understand the concept of good guys in our culture.  No matter who we "help" over there, we are helping someone who has zero interest in human rights, acceptance of others, etc. 

This sounds like a pretty good reason to not intervene in my opinion.

[Dolphster]

This sounds like a pretty good reason to not intervene in my opinion.

I know it makes me look like a heartless bastard, but I agree.  They have been slaughtering each other in that region for 4,000 years and nothing we can do will ever change that. 

[Spider-Dan]

There are ways to affect geopolitical events that do not involve the military.  Furthermore, we can choose not to intervene while simultaneously doing things like, say, accepting refugees.

[pondwater]

There are ways to affect geopolitical events that do not involve the military.  Furthermore, we can choose not to intervene while simultaneously doing things like, say, accepting refugees.

Hahaha, that's funny!

[Spider-Dan]

I'm discussing accepting refugees in the context of not being a "heartless bastard."  I'm well aware that there is a sizable contingent of Americans who believe that Syrian refugees should sink or swim on their own.  (Unless they're Christian, in which case we should help them because Jesus.)

[pondwater]

I'm discussing accepting refugees in the context of not being a "heartless bastard."  I'm well aware that there is a sizable contingent of Americans who believe that Syrian refugees should sink or swim on their own.  (Unless they're Christian, in which case we should help them because Jesus.)

I wouldn't suggest importing any refugees regardless of what religion they belong to. What does religion have to do with it?

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I wouldn't suggest importing any refugees regardless of what religion they belong to. What does religion have to do with it?

The POTUS has stated our immigration policy should give preferential treatment to Christians.

[pondwater]

The POTUS has stated our immigration policy should give preferential treatment to Christians.

That's unfortunate.

[Dave Gray]

I actually favor some level of military action like this, but you have to pair it with humanitarian stuff, like taking in the refugees.  It's a package deal that will help you in the (very) long term.

I don't support regime-change because then it becomes your mess, but you can act reasonably to help (some) people from getting slaughtered without means to fight back.