Perhaps if the Democrats hadn't done it in 2013 it wouldn't have been so easy for Republicans to do it now, though.
We are in agreement that the Republicans should have held confirmation hearings and an up-or-down vote for Garland last year as per their job duties.
As far as legitimacy issues, though...well, you are simply incorrect--Trump won the Electoral College as per the rules under which we conduct ourselves as a nation and the Republicans won a majority of seats in both Houses of Congress. The question of "should those rules be changed for the modern era?" is a completely different issue altogether. Disliking the results of an election is not the same as delegitimizing the Administration.
Isn't that what the Republican Party has been doing the last 8 years? Delegitimizing both terms of President Obama?
I will freely admit I disliked President Bush, what with the ultra-tight Florida election and then the SCOTUS ruling in his fabor. And then he focused on taking Clinton's projected surplus and turned it into a tax cut rather than reducing the federal debt or dealing with the always problematical social security/medicare/medicaid funding. I particularly despised him since it was transparently obvious we started the Iraq War for reasons other than that publically stated by the president. I wasn't comfortable with Afganistan, but I could accept it. Oh, and refusing to be a signatory of the Kyoto Protocol.
But I never thought he wasn't a legitimate president, nor railed against EVERYTHING he did.
Refusing to even hold hearings on Obama's SCOTUS nomination IS delegitimizing the administration. It's saying that Obama is not a President worth granting nominations. That's why the Democrats went with the cloture motions in 2013, because there was too much filibustering of judicial appointee.
Those thoughts aside, though, for the sake of discussion let us walk down the path of "this government is not legitimate" for a while and see where it leads. If we make that our beginning presumption, where does this take us? What options do you have in the face a government which is not legitimate? Wait, get people motivated to vote, and try to change the leadership in both two and four years? Move to another country? Secede? No, really, what options are available? I am uncertain that we have ever been here before, at least not quite like this.
In a peaceful democracy, short of a totalitarian take-over (which I KNOW my Republican father said back in 2014 that Obama was going to overthrow the government and install himself as dictator-for-life, and I just WONDER where he got THAT notion), we'd wait for the next election.
Personally, I'm willing to wait, though I am pained by more and more bullshit from the conservative christiafascists. And I hope that giving them enough rope, they will hang themselves before the nation and the world goes down with them.
Move? To where? America has presence EVERYWHERE. And abandoning it means ceding to the crazies and further legitimizing them.
Secession is not legal when done unilaterally although the S.C. acknowledges that "the states" would allow it, presumably by a majority of the states accepting the terms of secession.
Let's hear from those who have been touting Trump's isolationism now.....Donald Trump just straight up fired 50 rockets at the Syrian military and basically just declared war.
By the way, I warned to watch out for military action soon in this thread less than a week ago.
This isn't even an argument about whether what we are doing is "right" or not. The pictures from the chemical weapons attack are horrible, but half a million people have died in this conflict already, and there is no difference in HOW that occurs. We are refusing to take refugees from this hellscape. But, more importantly, this flies directly in the face of the policy the Trump Administration had less than 72 hrs ago. The point is, we have a President who is so impulsive that he will change his entire viewpoint and strategy on foreign policy in less than 3 days, likely based on what he watches on TV. I have no idea what the right thing to do in Syria is. I know for a FACT that having Donald Trump be the man in charge of making those decisions is a recipe for unmitigated disaster.
And, again, I reiterate. There is one thing and one thing only that brings you back from mid-30s approval numbers. And that is bombs and flag-waving.
Let's hear from those who have been touting Trump's isolationism now.....Donald Trump just straight up fired 50 rockets at the Syrian military and basically just declared war.
By the way, I warned to watch out for military action soon in this thread less than a week ago.
This isn't even an argument about whether what we are doing is "right" or not. The pictures from the chemical weapons attack are horrible, but half a million people have died in this conflict already, and there is no difference in HOW that occurs. We are refusing to take refugees from this hellscape. But, more importantly, this flies directly in the face of the policy the Trump Administration had less than 72 hrs ago. The point is, we have a President who is so impulsive that he will change his entire viewpoint and strategy on foreign policy in less than 3 days, likely based on what he watches on TV. I have no idea what the right thing to do in Syria is. I know for a FACT that having Donald Trump be the man in charge of making those decisions is a recipe for unmitigated disaster.
And, again, I reiterate. There is one thing and one thing only that brings you back from mid-30s approval numbers. And that is bombs and flag-waving.
Good point about the refugees. Trump banned them.
Coincidence that Trump attacked Syria on the same day that the Senate confirmed his insanely ideological Supreme Court judge by changing the rules? Probably not.
So it's majority rules now for the Supreme Court. Considering the backlash to Trump I fully expect Republicans to be the minority in the Senate in 2020 and lose the presidency.
Trump has expressed horror at the recent chemical attack in Syria. At least this indicates that he does have some sense of empathy. I don't think he's a very empathetic person in general, but he is capable of it.
My dad wondered aloud what Trump was going to do regarding Syria, and whether the GOP, which had spent years attacking Obama for not intervening (despite voting no when Obama asked Congress for permission to intervene), would actually do anything about Syria. He suspects the administration will take some token action so they can claim to have done something, when they've really done nothing to change the facts on the ground.
I predict no meaningful action on the Syria issue. If the GOP couldn't come up with a replacement for Obamacare despite having 7 years to do so, they're not going to be able to coordinate on Syria. Assad will continue to fight the rebels and act with little resistance from the rest of the world.
In retrospect, I think the U.S. should have gotten involved in Syria. Even if it had been just as destructive as the Iraq War, even if we handled it as poorly as we did Iraq, we'd still have saved over 200,000 human lives. Not because Syria would be doing great, but simply because that's just how awful the situation in Syria has gotten. Less than 200,000 people died over the course of the Iraq War and the entire insurgency. Over 400,000 people have died during the Syrian civil war, and it's not even over yet.
But intervention simply wasn't possible at the time. Congress and the American people, including myself, were strongly opposed to getting wrapped up in another conflict in the Middle East. Nothing could be done when most of the United States wanted to stay out of it.
I don't think the Trump administration is going to bring an end to the Syrian civil war; I don't think they understand the situation well enough to outmaneuver the other people involved. But if they do try to fight Assad directly, I don't think they'll be ready when the Russians escalate.
I do think it's possible to push Russia out of the equation with sufficient force. Putin has backed down when confronted; he's not interested in losing any fights. Putin cares about Syria, but Putin cares about Russia more. He will not sacrifice the latter for the former.
But if Trump wants to confront Putin, or any major hostile actor besides ISIS, I doubt Congress is going to help him out. Lots of people in both parties oppose intervention in general, and Trump lacks the follow-through to maintain a major military commitment.
I do not think the U.S. will do much fighting under the Trump administration, at least not any more than it did under the Obama administration. We'll probably just see more drone strikes and limited commitments. The rest of the world will be left to its own devices--which I think will be mostly bad news for peace and for humankind.
This is what I'm talking about. This is amateur hour. So we have no change of our position on Assad, and the strikes did nothing to prevent future chemical attacks from taking place. This isn't coming from me, it's coming from the Secretary of State and the National Security Adviser. So we shot 50 missiles at an airfield to do what exactly??
And look, again, this is an impossible situation, but here is a women who has a clear grasp of the situation and would have a concrete tactical reason for doing it. She also happened to get 3 million more votes than the Dipshit in Chief who couldn't point out Syria on a map if his life depended on it:
This is why you want serious people running things. They may be right, they may be horribly wrong, but they don't treat the situation like a game. Hillary Clinton would be taking this seriously. Donald Trump basically just put on a fireworks show on an airstrip with no strategic goal whatsoever.
Scary that his tiny little fingers are on THE button. If he doesn't get the love he thinks he deserves for some reason he might escalate beyond the rational since he's not.
Scary that his tiny little fingers are on THE button. If he doesn't get the love he thinks he deserves for some reason he might escalate beyond the rational since he's not.
This makes me think of Father Ted's Dougal looking at the button marked DO NOT PRESS....
Let's hear from those who have been touting Trump's isolationism now.....Donald Trump just straight up fired 50 rockets at the Syrian military and basically just declared war.
Donald Trump didn't declare a war (with whom exactly?), merely sent a message/warning.
This isn't even an argument about whether what we are doing is "right" or not. The pictures from the chemical weapons attack are horrible, but half a million people have died in this conflict already, and there is no difference in HOW that occurs.
I agree that there is a parade of hypocrisy with the reactions around the chemical attack, since the Syria Civilian War is producing horrors on a daily schedule, even by the ones who are so shocked by the chemical attack right now.
But I disagree that it doesn't matter HOW. If it doesn't matter HOW, than chemical weapons should be legal, because it doesn't matter... let everyone hold biological/chemical weapons - there must be a red line.
This is what I'm talking about. This is amateur hour. So we have no change of our position on Assad, and the strikes did nothing to prevent future chemical attacks from taking place. This isn't coming from me, it's coming from the Secretary of State and the National Security Adviser. So we shot 50 missiles at an airfield to do what exactly??
Basically, to deliver a message - don't mess with us / there is a new sheriff in town. This is the language which is most commonly spoke in the middle east, after Arabic.
What are the options here really?
Do nothing - like producing the usual weak and meaningless condemnations, which won't prevent the next chemical attack, as reality already proves us.
Unmeasured Attack - which will break the power balance in Syria - and most likely will deteriorate the entire region into a spin.
Full intervention - .....
Attacking an empty-field airfield is extremely measured response, which of course doesn't eliminate Assad chemical capabilities (in order to do that you must destroy all the airfields/artillery of Syria, plus bombing the different potential chemical caches, including in Lebanon) - but Assad will think 1000x times next time before using any chemical weapons again.
We have no business involving ourselves in Syria whatsoever--that is an internal problem which needs to be solved internally by Syrians. I agree with @jjstraka34 that this is all about misdirection away from Senatorial shenanigans (even though the Senate is allowed to change its own rules when chooses to) and ongoing investigations. As far as I know right now, no one is certain who used the chemical weapons and without that information you cannot conclude what the attack actually means or why it was carried out in the first place. Still, the posturing is happening on all sides--Putin is speaking out against the missile attack even though they were given advance notice of it (from what we are being told, that is). Even some Members of Congress are feigning shock--"*gasp* the President should confer with us before taking military action", which is complete balderdash--both Bush and Obama took military action without conferring with Congress and for the most part they all just mumbled quietly without really pushing the issue.
This isn't going to stop anyone from using chemical weapons if they really want to. There are already several international agreements not to manufacture or use them but nations find ways of doing so, anyway. In fact, it is only a matter of time before someone else uses chemical weapons on their own citizens as part of some sort of civil war.
re: legitimacy. Winning by even 1 vote is still winning. If a baseball team wins by 1 run in the bottom of the 9th inning of game 7 of the World Series because the other team has a field error, allowing the runner on third to steal home, then we wouldn't question the legitimacy of that victory.
Obama went to Congress (as he should have) to get permission for this exact type of operation. He was denied, and he did not go further. Now the same Republicans who refused to grant Obama authority are fine with Trump doing it without even consulting Congress?? Yeah, ok.
Furthermore, reports are now coming out that 9 civilians (4 children) were killed in this attack. So I guess that getting killed by chemical gas is worse than getting blown up by a US bomb. That's what we tell ourselves anyway. And, as @Mathsorcerer said, this is all a big sideshow. The Russians and Syrians knew this was coming (though our NATO allies didn't), and cleared out quickly. This was utterly meaningless. It's a dog and pony show to try to create a illusory wedge between Putin and Trump where none exists. This is war theater at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars in tomahawk missiles and 9 Syrian civilians who weren't dead until last night. The media is sure as hell getting in line though. If Iraq taught us one thing, it's that EVERY TV news outlet has uncontrollable orgasms when the bombs start flying.
You are also seeing alot of right-wing anti-interventionist types turn on Trump in the wake of this. They actually believed what he was saying in the campaign. Jokes on them.
re: legitimacy. Winning by even 1 vote is still winning. If a baseball team wins by 1 run in the bottom of the 9th inning of game 7 of the World Series because the other team has a field error, allowing the runner on third to steal home, then we wouldn't question the legitimacy of that victory.
If a team wins by 1 run and come to find out later had used a corked bat or a Russian paid off the umpire then you gotta question the legitimacy.
Obama went to Congress (as he should have) to get permission for this exact type of operation. He was denied, and he did not go further. Now the same Republicans who refused to grant Obama authority are fine with Trump doing it without even consulting Congress?? Yeah, ok.
Furthermore, reports are now coming out that 9 civilians (4 children) were killed in this attack. So I guess that getting killed by chemical gas is worse than getting blown up by a US bomb. That's what we tell ourselves anyway. And, as @Mathsorcerer said, this is all a big sideshow. The Russians and Syrians knew this was coming (though our NATO allies didn't), and cleared out quickly. This was utterly meaningless. It's a dog and pony show to try to create a illusory wedge between Putin and Trump where none exists.
You are also seeing alot of right-wing anti-interventionist types turn on Trump in the wake of this. They actually believed what he was saying in the campaign. Jokes on them.
Yep dog and pony show and it's working. The news isn't on Trump or Republican shenanigans, it's reporting the attack.
I don't see right wing types turning on him for this. They can apparently excuse everything he does including shooting someone on 5th avenue or whatever.
Obama went to Congress (as he should have) to get permission for this exact type of operation. He was denied, and he did not go further. Now the same Republicans who refused to grant Obama authority are fine with Trump doing it without even consulting Congress?? Yeah, ok.
Furthermore, reports are now coming out that 9 civilians (4 children) were killed in this attack. So I guess that getting killed by chemical gas is worse than getting blown up by a US bomb. That's what we tell ourselves anyway. And, as @Mathsorcerer said, this is all a big sideshow. The Russians and Syrians knew this was coming (though our NATO allies didn't), and cleared out quickly. This was utterly meaningless. It's a dog and pony show to try to create a illusory wedge between Putin and Trump where none exists. This is war theater at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars in tomahawk missiles and 9 Syrian civilians who weren't dead until last night. The media is sure as hell getting in line though. If Iraq taught us one thing, it's that EVERY TV news outlet has uncontrollable orgasms when the bombs start flying.
You are also seeing alot of right-wing anti-interventionist types turn on Trump in the wake of this. They actually believed what he was saying in the campaign. Jokes on them.
I think this report should be taken with a truck load of salt. This report immediately pops up the question:
What 9 civilians and children were doing in an empty air-field?
As you said, Tomahawk cruise missiles cost millions of dollars. Another feature of the Tomahawk cruise missile is that it is extremely accurate, on the level of guiding it through a window. So unless someone was extremely careless in the USS warships, I find it very hard to believe that report.
And yeah, the missiles attack by the US side was a show, but for a specific aim - Deterrence.
Like it or not, deterrence in the middle east has much greater effect then any signed treaty, condemnation or agreement.
After this 'show', I doubt that Assad will use chemical weapons again anytime soon, because next time it won't end up with 59 cruise missiles. Unless of course Assad will be with his back to the wall, and then this weapons won't be aimed toward the Syrian people...
I'd wager Assad will do whatever he wants unless we escalate further. Those missiles were no threat to him whatsoever--we didn't launch missiles on his palace, or threaten to harm him or his interests personally. Assad and his friends are still safe and sound.
It's Assad's people that died in that attack. And if this war has shown anything, it's that Assad is not afraid of his people getting killed.
Terrorist groups have been known to chain civilians to buildings and structures that they think might be targeted to bombing.
This is so that when it is reported, it is perceived the bombings killed innocent people, angering not only those in their country for the careless bombing but also those in foriegn countries to condemn the act.
It's becoming increasingly clear the Syrian military was tipped off, so the bombings, from a military perspective, manged to create some big holes in the ground. And how, exactly, would the Syrian military have been tipped off?? Because we ran the entire thing by Russia before going through with it. IF this was meant to be deterrent, why the hell would we inform a country we could be 100% sure would alert Assad's forces?? The answer of course, is that the entire thing was a charade.
It's becoming increasingly clear the Syrian military was tipped off, so the bombings, from a military perspective, manged to create some big holes in the ground. And how, exactly, would the Syrian military have been tipped off?? Because we ran the entire thing by Russia before going through with it. IF this was meant to be deterrent, why the hell would we inform a country we could be 100% sure would alert Assad's forces?? The answer of course, is that the entire thing was a charade.
I disagree, they have been noticed in order to prevent human loss, unnecessary international incident with Russia (If any Russian soldier would have been hurt) and deterioration of the entire situation ( and I can describe you easily a scenario how an unmeasured response would cause, at this point of time, much more harm than good.)
The intention was to deliver a warning, a message. And in order to do that you don't have kill anyone, but you do have to show you have the intention and the capabilities.
I doubt that anyone in the Syrian army is now belittling the US intention to intervene if another chemical attack takes place, let alone other factor such as Iran, Hezbollah, Yemen, who all set their eyes on how the US is going to react.
It's becoming increasingly clear the Syrian military was tipped off, so the bombings, from a military perspective, manged to create some big holes in the ground. And how, exactly, would the Syrian military have been tipped off?? Because we ran the entire thing by Russia before going through with it. IF this was meant to be deterrent, why the hell would we inform a country we could be 100% sure would alert Assad's forces?? The answer of course, is that the entire thing was a charade.
I disagree, they have been noticed in order to prevent human loss, unnecessary international incident with Russia (If any Russian soldier would have been hurt) and deterioration of the entire situation ( and I can describe you easily a scenario how an unmeasured response would cause, at this point of time, much more harm than good.)
The intention was to deliver a warning, a message. And in order to do that you don't have kill anyone, but you do have to show you have the intention and the capabilities.
I doubt that anyone in the Syrian army is now belittling the US intention to intervene if another chemical attack takes place, let alone other factor such as Iran, Hezbollah, Yemen, who all set their eyes on how the US is going to react.
Who the hell on Earth doesn't already know about America's "intention" or "capabilities" in the Middle East?? We've proven them for over half a century. So blowing some holes on one of Assad's airstrips hours after he knew it was coming does what?? If you are purposefully tipping them off, they KNOW you aren't serious. Assad suffered nothing in the attack, and now knows that Trump had no intention of doing anything other than putting on a fireworks show for American TV networks.
It's becoming increasingly clear the Syrian military was tipped off, so the bombings, from a military perspective, manged to create some big holes in the ground. And how, exactly, would the Syrian military have been tipped off?? Because we ran the entire thing by Russia before going through with it. IF this was meant to be deterrent, why the hell would we inform a country we could be 100% sure would alert Assad's forces?? The answer of course, is that the entire thing was a charade.
I disagree, they have been noticed in order to prevent human loss, unnecessary international incident with Russia (If any Russian soldier would have been hurt) and deterioration of the entire situation ( and I can describe you easily a scenario how an unmeasured response would cause, at this point of time, much more harm than good.)
The intention was to deliver a warning, a message. And in order to do that you don't have kill anyone, but you do have to show you have the intention and the capabilities.
I doubt that anyone in the Syrian army is now belittling the US intention to intervene if another chemical attack takes place, let alone other factor such as Iran, Hezbollah, Yemen, who all set their eyes on how the US is going to react.
Who the hell on Earth doesn't already know about America's "intention" or "capabilities" in the Middle East?? We've proven them for over half a century. So blowing some holes on one of Assad's airstrips hours after he knew it was coming does what?? If you are purposefully tipping them off, they KNOW you aren't serious. Assad suffered nothing in the attack, and now knows that Trump had no intention of doing anything other than putting on a fireworks show for American TV networks.
For the capabilities, I agree, for the intention for intervening in the current situation? please... I guess 'leading from behind' has something to do with it.
And again, you don't need to hurt anyone in order to deliver a message in a 'diplomatic' way, and if you think the Assad just watched from the side and laughed to himself, I'm sorry to disappoint you.
Now instead of going head to head, lets review the options here:
1. Attacking without warning, possibly hurting Assad or his family, possibly causing his immediate fall and starting a chain reaction such as the slaughter of the Alawites in West Syria by the Sunni side, fall of Lebanon, trigger retaliation of Scad + Chemical weapons towards Syria neighbors, to name a few... or worse, hurting Russia personnel in Syria, which will lead to...
2. Do nothing, just keep watching and provide the usual useless condemnation, forgetting for a second that you are the largest super power in the world (if speaking on intension).
3. Work for a solution in a diplomatic way with all parties involved (we have seen how it worked so far)
4. Take a measured response, which will deliver a message and will draw a firm red line regarding the use of chemical weapons and that you are serious about it.
What would you choose? If you think there are other options please feel free to add
P.S
As I said, the attack meant to deliver a message and to deter from using chemical weapons again
It has prominently on Faux News.Com how Trump didn't even courtesy call Putin! Wow big deal, right? I guess Russian forces were notified somehow but apparently Trump didn't personally call Putin or at least that's the line we're being given. Trump's not the puppet, you're the puppet!
This had nothing to do with preventing anything. This was a show for the American media to swallow up the news cycle and bolster poll numbers sitting in the mid-30s. It accomplished nothing put providing a smokescreen from Russian connections and, more importantly, getting the American media in line.
As for Obama "leading from behind", he sought Congressional approval for hitting Assad's forces TWICE and was rejected. Everything that has been done since 9/11, to ANYONE in the Middle East has used that war authorization as an excuse, and it's been nothing but Congress simply refusing to do their job since then. That was an easier case to make when Obama was bombing ISIS targets (since ISIS is, after all, the direct and predictable result of the Iraq War), but it doesn't work so well when you are hitting the military of another country, no matter how brutal their dictator is.
So, again, people can say Obama was "just like Bush" all they want, but he sought the proper approval for this kind of action outlined in the Constitution when it came to Assad, and was rebuffed by the Republican Congress. Now they are perfectly fine with Trump calling his own shots.
2. Do nothing, just keep watching and provide the usual useless condemnation, forgetting for a second that you are the largest super power in the world (if speaking on intension).
As I said, the attack meant to deliver a message and to deter from using chemical weapons again The Associated Press @AP BREAKING: US ambassador warns that US is prepared to take further action against Syria but hopes it won't be necessary.
You are also seeing alot of right-wing anti-interventionist types turn on Trump in the wake of this. They actually believed what he was saying in the campaign. Jokes on them.
Campaign? It had nothing to do with his campaign???
The main reason why many "right-wing-anti-interventionist" as you call it are against trump on this is because he did exactly what they predicted by turning full neo-con. On the same train as Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Nancy Pelosi (and even ISIS). They were hoping this wouldn't happen, Trump as they predicted hasn't exactly drained the swamp of his foreign advisors.
Comments
I will freely admit I disliked President Bush, what with the ultra-tight Florida election and then the SCOTUS ruling in his fabor. And then he focused on taking Clinton's projected surplus and turned it into a tax cut rather than reducing the federal debt or dealing with the always problematical social security/medicare/medicaid funding. I particularly despised him since it was transparently obvious we started the Iraq War for reasons other than that publically stated by the president. I wasn't comfortable with Afganistan, but I could accept it. Oh, and refusing to be a signatory of the Kyoto Protocol.
But I never thought he wasn't a legitimate president, nor railed against EVERYTHING he did.
Refusing to even hold hearings on Obama's SCOTUS nomination IS delegitimizing the administration. It's saying that Obama is not a President worth granting nominations. That's why the Democrats went with the cloture motions in 2013, because there was too much filibustering of judicial appointee. In a peaceful democracy, short of a totalitarian take-over (which I KNOW my Republican father said back in 2014 that Obama was going to overthrow the government and install himself as dictator-for-life, and I just WONDER where he got THAT notion), we'd wait for the next election.
Personally, I'm willing to wait, though I am pained by more and more bullshit from the conservative christiafascists. And I hope that giving them enough rope, they will hang themselves before the nation and the world goes down with them.
Move? To where? America has presence EVERYWHERE. And abandoning it means ceding to the crazies and further legitimizing them.
Secession is not legal when done unilaterally although the S.C. acknowledges that "the states" would allow it, presumably by a majority of the states accepting the terms of secession.
Trump Administration trying to get personal info of random critics on Twitter.
Let's hear from those who have been touting Trump's isolationism now.....Donald Trump just straight up fired 50 rockets at the Syrian military and basically just declared war.
By the way, I warned to watch out for military action soon in this thread less than a week ago.
This isn't even an argument about whether what we are doing is "right" or not. The pictures from the chemical weapons attack are horrible, but half a million people have died in this conflict already, and there is no difference in HOW that occurs. We are refusing to take refugees from this hellscape. But, more importantly, this flies directly in the face of the policy the Trump Administration had less than 72 hrs ago. The point is, we have a President who is so impulsive that he will change his entire viewpoint and strategy on foreign policy in less than 3 days, likely based on what he watches on TV. I have no idea what the right thing to do in Syria is. I know for a FACT that having Donald Trump be the man in charge of making those decisions is a recipe for unmitigated disaster.
And, again, I reiterate. There is one thing and one thing only that brings you back from mid-30s approval numbers. And that is bombs and flag-waving.
Coincidence that Trump attacked Syria on the same day that the Senate confirmed his insanely ideological Supreme Court judge by changing the rules? Probably not.
So it's majority rules now for the Supreme Court. Considering the backlash to Trump I fully expect Republicans to be the minority in the Senate in 2020 and lose the presidency.
My dad wondered aloud what Trump was going to do regarding Syria, and whether the GOP, which had spent years attacking Obama for not intervening (despite voting no when Obama asked Congress for permission to intervene), would actually do anything about Syria. He suspects the administration will take some token action so they can claim to have done something, when they've really done nothing to change the facts on the ground.
I predict no meaningful action on the Syria issue. If the GOP couldn't come up with a replacement for Obamacare despite having 7 years to do so, they're not going to be able to coordinate on Syria. Assad will continue to fight the rebels and act with little resistance from the rest of the world.
In retrospect, I think the U.S. should have gotten involved in Syria. Even if it had been just as destructive as the Iraq War, even if we handled it as poorly as we did Iraq, we'd still have saved over 200,000 human lives. Not because Syria would be doing great, but simply because that's just how awful the situation in Syria has gotten. Less than 200,000 people died over the course of the Iraq War and the entire insurgency. Over 400,000 people have died during the Syrian civil war, and it's not even over yet.
But intervention simply wasn't possible at the time. Congress and the American people, including myself, were strongly opposed to getting wrapped up in another conflict in the Middle East. Nothing could be done when most of the United States wanted to stay out of it.
I don't think the Trump administration is going to bring an end to the Syrian civil war; I don't think they understand the situation well enough to outmaneuver the other people involved. But if they do try to fight Assad directly, I don't think they'll be ready when the Russians escalate.
But if Trump wants to confront Putin, or any major hostile actor besides ISIS, I doubt Congress is going to help him out. Lots of people in both parties oppose intervention in general, and Trump lacks the follow-through to maintain a major military commitment.
I do not think the U.S. will do much fighting under the Trump administration, at least not any more than it did under the Obama administration. We'll probably just see more drone strikes and limited commitments. The rest of the world will be left to its own devices--which I think will be mostly bad news for peace and for humankind.
This is what I'm talking about. This is amateur hour. So we have no change of our position on Assad, and the strikes did nothing to prevent future chemical attacks from taking place. This isn't coming from me, it's coming from the Secretary of State and the National Security Adviser. So we shot 50 missiles at an airfield to do what exactly??
And look, again, this is an impossible situation, but here is a women who has a clear grasp of the situation and would have a concrete tactical reason for doing it. She also happened to get 3 million more votes than the Dipshit in Chief who couldn't point out Syria on a map if his life depended on it:
This is why you want serious people running things. They may be right, they may be horribly wrong, but they don't treat the situation like a game. Hillary Clinton would be taking this seriously. Donald Trump basically just put on a fireworks show on an airstrip with no strategic goal whatsoever.
But I disagree that it doesn't matter HOW. If it doesn't matter HOW, than chemical weapons should be legal, because it doesn't matter... let everyone hold biological/chemical weapons - there must be a red line.
What are the options here really?
Do nothing - like producing the usual weak and meaningless condemnations, which won't prevent the next chemical attack, as reality already proves us.
Unmeasured Attack - which will break the power balance in Syria - and most likely will deteriorate the entire region into a spin.
Full intervention - .....
Attacking an empty-field airfield is extremely measured response, which of course doesn't eliminate Assad chemical capabilities (in order to do that you must destroy all the airfields/artillery of Syria, plus bombing the different potential chemical caches, including in Lebanon) - but Assad will think 1000x times next time before using any chemical weapons again.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/stockholm-lorry-crash-latest-attack-sweden-people-city-centre-victim-pavement-truck-a7672521.html
At least 3 dead...
This isn't going to stop anyone from using chemical weapons if they really want to. There are already several international agreements not to manufacture or use them but nations find ways of doing so, anyway. In fact, it is only a matter of time before someone else uses chemical weapons on their own citizens as part of some sort of civil war.
re: legitimacy. Winning by even 1 vote is still winning. If a baseball team wins by 1 run in the bottom of the 9th inning of game 7 of the World Series because the other team has a field error, allowing the runner on third to steal home, then we wouldn't question the legitimacy of that victory.
Furthermore, reports are now coming out that 9 civilians (4 children) were killed in this attack. So I guess that getting killed by chemical gas is worse than getting blown up by a US bomb. That's what we tell ourselves anyway. And, as @Mathsorcerer said, this is all a big sideshow. The Russians and Syrians knew this was coming (though our NATO allies didn't), and cleared out quickly. This was utterly meaningless. It's a dog and pony show to try to create a illusory wedge between Putin and Trump where none exists. This is war theater at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars in tomahawk missiles and 9 Syrian civilians who weren't dead until last night. The media is sure as hell getting in line though. If Iraq taught us one thing, it's that EVERY TV news outlet has uncontrollable orgasms when the bombs start flying.
You are also seeing alot of right-wing anti-interventionist types turn on Trump in the wake of this. They actually believed what he was saying in the campaign. Jokes on them.
I don't see right wing types turning on him for this. They can apparently excuse everything he does including shooting someone on 5th avenue or whatever.
What 9 civilians and children were doing in an empty air-field?
As you said, Tomahawk cruise missiles cost millions of dollars. Another feature of the Tomahawk cruise missile is that it is extremely accurate, on the level of guiding it through a window. So unless someone was extremely careless in the USS warships, I find it very hard to believe that report.
And yeah, the missiles attack by the US side was a show, but for a specific aim - Deterrence.
Like it or not, deterrence in the middle east has much greater effect then any signed treaty, condemnation or agreement.
After this 'show', I doubt that Assad will use chemical weapons again anytime soon, because next time it won't end up with 59 cruise missiles. Unless of course Assad will be with his back to the wall, and then this weapons won't be aimed toward the Syrian people...
It's Assad's people that died in that attack. And if this war has shown anything, it's that Assad is not afraid of his people getting killed.
This is so that when it is reported, it is perceived the bombings killed innocent people, angering not only those in their country for the careless bombing but also those in foriegn countries to condemn the act.
The intention was to deliver a warning, a message. And in order to do that you don't have kill anyone, but you do have to show you have the intention and the capabilities.
I doubt that anyone in the Syrian army is now belittling the US intention to intervene if another chemical attack takes place, let alone other factor such as Iran, Hezbollah, Yemen, who all set their eyes on how the US is going to react.
And again, you don't need to hurt anyone in order to deliver a message in a 'diplomatic' way, and if you think the Assad just watched from the side and laughed to himself, I'm sorry to disappoint you.
Now instead of going head to head, lets review the options here:
1. Attacking without warning, possibly hurting Assad or his family, possibly causing his immediate fall and starting a chain reaction such as the slaughter of the Alawites in West Syria by the Sunni side, fall of Lebanon, trigger retaliation of Scad + Chemical weapons towards Syria neighbors, to name a few... or worse, hurting Russia personnel in Syria, which will lead to...
2. Do nothing, just keep watching and provide the usual useless condemnation, forgetting for a second that you are the largest super power in the world (if speaking on intension).
3. Work for a solution in a diplomatic way with all parties involved (we have seen how it worked so far)
4. Take a measured response, which will deliver a message and will draw a firm red line regarding the use of chemical weapons and that you are serious about it.
What would you choose? If you think there are other options please feel free to add
P.S
As I said, the attack meant to deliver a message and to deter from using chemical weapons again
The Associated Press @AP
BREAKING: US ambassador warns that US is prepared to take further action against Syria but hopes it won't be necessary.
This had nothing to do with preventing anything. This was a show for the American media to swallow up the news cycle and bolster poll numbers sitting in the mid-30s. It accomplished nothing put providing a smokescreen from Russian connections and, more importantly, getting the American media in line.
As for Obama "leading from behind", he sought Congressional approval for hitting Assad's forces TWICE and was rejected. Everything that has been done since 9/11, to ANYONE in the Middle East has used that war authorization as an excuse, and it's been nothing but Congress simply refusing to do their job since then. That was an easier case to make when Obama was bombing ISIS targets (since ISIS is, after all, the direct and predictable result of the Iraq War), but it doesn't work so well when you are hitting the military of another country, no matter how brutal their dictator is.
So, again, people can say Obama was "just like Bush" all they want, but he sought the proper approval for this kind of action outlined in the Constitution when it came to Assad, and was rebuffed by the Republican Congress. Now they are perfectly fine with Trump calling his own shots.
The main reason why many "right-wing-anti-interventionist" as you call it are against trump on this is because he did exactly what they predicted by turning full neo-con. On the same train as Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Nancy Pelosi (and even ISIS). They were hoping this wouldn't happen, Trump as they predicted hasn't exactly drained the swamp of his foreign advisors.
telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/07/syrians-hail-donald-trump-new-champion-abu-ivanka-al-amriki/
bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-39526653
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/04/07/praising-syria-strikes-arabs-hail-donald-trump-as-abu-ivanka-al-amriki/
This is sure to make some hardcore anti-Trumpers froth at the mouth