Politicized it by criticizing Obama? You really are a sick heartless b*stard aren't you? You only see things as Red or Blue. On this topic I could care less about political points. I care about children not being murdered and gassed. I could give a S#$% who gets the blame and who gets blame. They BOTH deserve blame because people are dying why WE turn a blind eye, and our country continues to have this ideological back in forth dialog about the Putin love fest who is really the power behind Assad. That's not politics... its policy and humanity. Trump is president now, and Tillerson is SOS now so what they do impacts how Russia and Assad act in their continued genocide. Their stance on Syria is a stance that has a ripple effect. That's just a fact dude, and blaming Obama (while he deserves blame and has spoken many times how that's his one decision that keeps him up at night) doesn't change the fact that Trump can't just play politics and blame Obama or Clinton. He's President now, and has to make the tough decisions that has innocent lives in his hands.
We kill more people than we save in every damn country. Solution: keep out! We don't have the solution to every problem in the world. That's pride, thinking we're the white knights. Every. Single. Time. Hey, we just happen to be brilliant and just and successful in our execution, right? If you got a problem, we got the solution. It's called: weapons.
True, but I don't think Trump has the balls to go against Putin's wishes any more than Obama did. I wouldn't expect any kind of serious response to this chemical weapon strike any more than the last one.
This is something NATO should be handling in my opinion, much like it should have handled the refugee crisis in Europe along with the UN before it became a crisis. We should have sort of international governing body to decide when to take offensive measures to prevent unilateral action. NATO should be the one stopping genocide in the Middle East and Africa. More optimally, lets form some sort of G20 security pact as these sort of things disrupt stability. A stronger, more prosperous Middle East and Africa means more consumers.
So we ****ed up and destabilized the region by invading Iraq (who we thought had bad stuff but didn't), and now Syria - who we have known to have had bad stuff for years, and have not been shy to use it - is using it again and we act all shocked and ask why didn't Obama do something about it? There's a whole list of Presidents who have screwed this situation up, let's not give all the credit to just that last guy or 2.
The whole thing about Obama doing nothing with regards to Syria is ridiculous. In 2013 Obama asked congress to authorize military strikes against Syria. The Republican controlled congress did NOTHING even though Obama actually requested authorization for military action against Assad. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/middleeast/syria.html So for Republicans to blame it on Obama is ridiculous. It's laughable, but sadly predictable as well.
Of course like many of these brutal guys Assad had our support until he was no longer useful somehow.. Who knows? We will see, but it all seems too convenient for the folks who have been trying to overthrow Assad that this happens one week after Sec of State Tillerson says our goal was not to overthrow Assad anymore. This after Obama tried to overthrow Assad without troops or the no fly zone which the neo-con light HIllary and the real neo-cons lusted for. Obama went for "advisors" routing Lybyan weapons to Al Qaeda types supported by our great allies like the Saudis who are hot to overthrow Assad. The Russians say it might be the result of conventional bombing hitting a stockpile that the government never destroyed. It could be the rebels had some gas. Might be correct. Often times "who benefits" eventually explains these stories. Overall just another round in the proxy war between us and our allies vs Syria, Iran and Assad.
Is there strong proof that Assad ordered this? Not seeing how he benefits from this. The anti-Assad rebels, on the other hand, have a lot to gain.
Well at least he's consistent. He thought we should forget about the Syrians in 2013 and he hasn't changed his mind since. That's a good point. His military inaction wasn't his alone -- Congress wasn't willing, and honestly the public wasn't either. But I think part of the strategy of asking Congress for authorization, sadly, was to give himself political cover for inaction because he knew permission would not be granted. It was 'the right way' but our Presidents have taken wide lattitude in using military force without Congressional approval. Suddenly remembering the rules was politically expedient. I don't want to complain too much because I think direct military involvement would have been a mistake so I'm glad he avoided it. Given our allergic reaction to actually helping in Syria though, the mistake imo was drawing a redline in the first place and in arming rebels since then. If you're out, be totally out. That makes me feel pretty conflicted about Trump. He obviously doesn't intend to do anything to help the Syrian opposition at all. We're already halfway in though, which means people have put their lives on the line with some understanding of American support. They are betrayed. I think the benefit he gets is that it strikes terror in the opposition when they see Assad can engage in atrocities without getting an international response. Maybe they will be more likely to surrender, or fighters will be deterred from joining the opposition or will flee the country to avoid being a victim of some atrocity. It's a blow to morale to see the one guy who normally has the power and the inclination to oppose atrocities turn a blind eye to your suffering. That only counts if Trump does nothing. If it draws the US further into the war, that's a bad plan. But, it's probably a safe bet Trump won't do anything. As for the rebels, yes they can get international sympathy and perhaps more aid as a result. Maybe it could be a reaction to Trump saying Assad's future was up to the Syrian people, trying to force him into opposing Assad. Where would they have gotten chemical weapons from, though? And, if a group like ISIS had chemical weapons, wouldn't they use it on Assad's territory instead? They don't want the Americans in, and they routinely use terror against the Assad govt. They are also the group most capable and likely most interested in getting chemical weapons. I think Occam's Razor points at Assad.
Assad knows he will not be removed from power by a foreign power anymore. He has the backing of Russia and Iran. Using chemical weapons achieves one important thing for a despot: striking fear into the few remaining pockets of resistance. This is Assad sending a message to Syrians still rebelling that they will be killed mercilessly.
I don't know what rock you just crawled from under but this *ucking *hit storm was will in the making before Pres Obama was in office.
Obama and the liberals' Syria strategy: 2012: red line 2013: ? 2014: ? 2015: ? 2016: ? 2017: How can Trump allow this to happen!?!?!?
You've had a number of liberals in this thread, myself included, lament the Obama administration's poor strategy in Syria. Swing and miss! Question: what do you think the US should've done in Syria? This is a question the most experienced foreign policy minds in the world have struggled to solve, so I look forward to your answer.
President Obama didn't need Congressional approval to crater Syria's runways, to make their air force a smoking ruin. Remember, this was before the Russians intervened in Syria, immensely complicating any US response to Assad's terrorism against his own people. In my opinion, Putin viewed Obama's lack of response when Assad crossed the "red line" (that the President should have never mentioned in the first place) as a "green light" to do as he pleased without fear of a strong US response. One could argue that this led to Russia's invasion and occupation of Crimea. In my opinion, it did. Taking out Assad's air force would also have put the fear of God into the Iranians, who are a major backer of the terrorist Assad. Having said all that, President Obama is no longer president. Mr. trump is. Will he condemn both the chemical attack by Assad and the Russian "explanation," which is entirely made up (in my opinion), or will he "accept" the Russian explanation for this crime against the innocent, shrug, and say, "next question?"
I agree he could have acted without congressional approval based on previous actions. I also agree that the red line was the first mistake. I do believe he went to congress for political cover, but in the end Obama did request authorization to use military force against Assad, and the Republican congress failed to give it. So if there is lament over the fact that we didn't act back then, the Republican congress shares in that blame.
