MESO-Rx

Anabolic Steroids

Trump Timeline ... Trumpocalypse

Big_paul said:
No one is talking about Trump team ties to russia now or the fact trump lives in an alternate reality.

I was wondering how long it would take him to figure out a war provides lots of cover. Its obvious he didn't think about it much though.
Click to expand...
Ironic that you speak of Trump living in an alternate reality. You seem to be living in your own as well.
 
xy5jn0 said:
So he's smart enough to do the old sleight of hand trick by leveling the airbase that was used for chemical weapons attacks? Or is that move from one of the geniuses he's hired?
Your argument runs all ways. Idiot that hires geniuses. Smart like a fox with the sleight of hand move. It seems to be either depending on what you need him to be in each particular point your arguing.
Click to expand...
It was a knee jerk reaction jerk off. No thought needed.
 
Michael Scally MD said:
Washington’s Supreme Hypocrisy on Chemical Weapons and Civilian Deaths
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/washingtons_supreme_hypocrisy_on_chemical_weapons_civilian_deaths_20170406/

The use of chemical weapons by the Syrian Army in Idlib is an atrocity and the pictures of dead children tug at the heart. But the outrage of American politicians inside the beltway about it draws on the myths of American exceptionalism and Alzheimer’s of the political memory. It is also very suspicious in that the loudest voices of sympathy are the ones closest to the US military industrial complex, which has been regretting the missed opportunity of a Syria War.

If Trump and his circle are so tenderhearted, why did they propose, on taking office, permanently banning Syrian refugees from the United States? If it weren’t for some feisty Federal court judges, the Syrian refugee ban would be in effect. How sympathetic can you be if you don’t even want to give children asylum from these heinous atrocities?

Then, why is how children are killed in war more important than that they are killed? The most conservative estimate for deaths in the Syrian Civil War is some 300,000, and you figure that although many of those are fighting men, some large proportion (33%?) are innocent noncombatants, including tens of thousands of children. Rebel groups have also killed tens of thousands of people, including innocent civilians, though the regime has been more deadly because better-armed. Why was it all right for the regime to use indiscriminate bombing and barrel bombs on civilian neighborhoods, but if they kill some 80 people with gas all of a sudden the Beltway Bandits want to Send in Trump?

And by the way, all the time the US was occupying Iraq, 2003-2011, it was intensively bombing civilian neighborhoods to get at Iraqi militias. It certainly killed thousands of innocent civilians this way, including children. I can remember just one Saturday afternoon in 2004, the US bombed Amara over and over again to get at the Shiite Mahdi Army militia. The Agence France Presse had a stringer on the ground who reported 84 deaths. They weren’t all combatants. The US media refused to run the AFP report.

All this isn’t new. The US has long had a doctrine that it is all right to inflict large civilian casualties with the aim of limited troop casualties. The United States used nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, after which there were thousands and thousands of dead children. Some were carbonized so quickly that nothing was left of them but shadows on the wall. Little children. The US security elite has never apologized for this war crime and continues to menace other nations with this kind of indiscriminate and unspeakable violence every time it announces that “all options are on the table.”
Click to expand...
3 days ago he was sucking putins dick and it was up to the Syrian people to decide their future.

This is nothing more than a distraction as far as trump is concerned. Trump cares about Syrians like he cares for stupid Americans. Losers:) I mean his base.
 
Paul. Were you always a wannabe political crony hack or is this something new for you?

On a side note. My best bud is a huge trump hater. Told me today that the only thing he likes about trumps short presidency is his missile attack on Syria. Go figure. Lol
 
Xlgx said:
Paul. Were you always a wannabe political crony hack or is this something new for you?

On a side note. My best bud is a huge trump hater. Told me today that the only thing he likes about trumps short presidency is his missile attack on Syria. Go figure. Lol
Click to expand...
Does he think the sky is falling too? That'd drive me nuts.
 




When the Electoral College elevated Donald Trump to the presidency, it conferred on him the awesome life-and-death powers that attend the office. It was inevitable that President Trump would use those powers sooner or later. Now he has. For the effects on the region, I refer you to the powerful piece by The Atlantic’s Andrew Exum. I’m concerned here with the effects on the U.S. political system. Seven seem most immediately relevant.

Trump’s Words Mean Nothing

Trump Does Not Give Reasons

Trump Does Not Care About Legality

Trump Disregards Government Processes

Trump Has No Allies

Trump Envisions No End State

Trump Is Lucky in His Opponents
 
Last edited:


President Trump’s decision to fire 59 cruise missiles against the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad for its use of chemical weapons is not easy to categorize. It’s both highly problematic and yet eminently defensible. First, to the latter point. Global norms matter, and upholding the long-standing one against the use of chemical weapons is important. Indeed, as Barry Posen, political science professor at MIT and the director of its Security Studies Program, sagely pointed out to me, one of the great ironies of Trump’s decision to use force is that is actually in direct support of President Obama’s 2013 negotiated agreement with the Syrian government (brokered by Moscow) to rid that country of chemical weapons and uphold the international norm regarding the use of such weapons. Trump and other Republicans — along with practically the entire D.C. pundit class — have repeatedly and vociferously criticized Obama’s actions back then because he didn’t send cruise missiles into Syria. But these criticisms consistently ignore the fact that the threat of US military force pushed Assad to turn over his stockpiles of chemical weapons and deterred him from any further use of these banned weapons in the more than three years since the deal was made — until now.

Now that it appears Assad violated the agreement he made with the United States, it’s hard to criticize a US president for deciding to use military force to enforce a deal made by his predecessor.

But that doesn’t mean there aren’t significant problems — and limitations — with Trump’s decision.

First, it’s not clear that Trump understands what global norms are and why they are important. Considering that he has spent the first 77 days of his presidency showing no interest in strengthening global institutions or upholding international rules, it’s hard to give him much credit here.

Second, just days ago, Trump administration officials suggested that the removal of Assad from power was no longer US policy.

Three days later, the United States bombed Assad’s military assets.

It seems that Trump’s astounding about-face was driven largely by the images of Syrian children killed in this chemical attack. Those pictures are certainly heartbreaking, but the president’s job is to be dispassionate and consider the larger strategic implications and potential consequences of using American military force. One would hope that Trump would not simply order a military attack because he was affected by terrible images. It is a troubling indication of how easily, quickly, and without much deliberation (or evidence) this president can reverse even long-standing foreign policy positions. That sends a very dangerous signal to allies and enemies alike.

Third, by impulsively deciding to bomb Syria, Trump has put his credibility on the line. What if Assad orders another chemical weapons attack? What if he simply goes back to indiscriminately killing civilians, including children, with air strikes or barrel bombs? How will Trump resist the pressure to ratchet up force to punish Assad again? Does he even want to resist that pressure? What if the Russians decide to respond provocatively, particularly in regard to the US troops in Iraq helping in the fight against the Islamic State? There’s little indication that Trump has given much thought to these questions.

Fourth, the Trump administration is taking the position that the United States should use force to punish the Assad regime for indiscriminately attacking civilians while actively seeking to block those same civilians from being accepted as refugees in the United States. If Trump cares so much about Syrian children being killed by Assad, perhaps he should stop blocking their entry to this country.

Fifth, the strategic logic and impact of this attack is virtually non-existent. It will do nothing to hasten the end of the war in Syria or end the suffering of the Syrian people. Indeed, the Trump administration doesn’t appear to have any larger political strategy at work here and, if anything, seems to be going out of it way to say this is an isolated attack without any diplomatic or military follow-through. If Trump’s goal here was to project toughness the clear indication that this is a one and done operation will likely have the opposite effect. Assad might be deterred from using chemical weapons again, but there’s little reason to believe he’ll be deterred from continuing to sadistically prosecute this war.

This airstrike also means the United States is now in conflict with two key protagonists in the Syrian civil war — the Assad regime and ISIS. Considering that US policy in Syria has been focused on defeating the Islamic State, getting involved in a larger war with the Syrian government would fundamentally undermine that goal.

Lastly, while the armchair generals in the D.C pundit class are practically wetting themselves over the fact that the United States has finally punished Assad, their fevered dreams that the United States will get more involved in the Syrian civil war will likely go unrealized.

There remains no effective US policy to end the war in Syria, and even with our impulsive, overly-emotional, and strategically deficient president, there is unlikely to be major escalation. The fact of the matter is that there still doesn’t exist an effective US policy to stop the bloodletting in Syria, which is something that Trump will likely come to understand.

In the end, this appears to be a one-off attack intended to make it look like the United States is doing something to respond to a heinous atrocity. While it might be defensible, that doesn’t mean it’s smart.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
TRT doctor
Replies
10
Views
167
iris
iris
H
TRT(+) and a fresh slate.
Replies
8
Views
240
Mr_Fusion
Mr_Fusion
R
New here: My TRT Story
Replies
2
Views
371
DMann
D
C
Steroids. My opinion has changed.
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
4K
ClownCatcher
C
H
New member intro
Replies
0
Views
131
holy02
H

Sponsors

Latest posts

Back
Top