Do you support Trump?

[Flutterguy]

Bombing for peace is and have always been a policy of insanity. It is not a tenable long-term solution for peace more than pissing in your pants keeps you warm in the winter. Bombing other countries is what I expected of any president of the US, and not one I approve of. Whether that president is Trump is irrelevant. He's not a person I approve of either way.

If the US really wanted to hurt Assad, they would just release proof that this chemical attack was indeed carried out from the base they just bombed. Supporting a side in a conflict carrying out attacks on civilians is very hard to do, even in Russia. Even Assad's local supporters would be put off by such proof.

That didn't happen. Thus I really have to question whether such proof exists.

How would that hurt Assad? The rest of the world really doesn't care if he used chemical weapons on his own people. Let's be brutally honest here.

[Deleted]

That is not mutually exclusive to Trump. Moreover the fact you think it is mutually exclusive is funny.




Sooo you support the idea that anyone who speaks out against the President or opposes their agenda belongs behind bars?

speaking out is one thing. Attacking people who support their president and want the country to be united is another. Say your opinions, but if you think that violent protests, breaking windows, looting, attacking people for supporting Trump, forcing people to lose their jobs and be unable to provide for their family is part of 'speaking out'

then yes you do belong behind bars because you are causing civil unrest.

[Danner]

How would that hurt Assad? The rest of the world really doesn't care if he used chemical weapons on his own people. Let's be brutally honest here.

I like your brutal honestly, but I am not so sure about that pessimistic stance.

I would argue that despite national powers acting like self-serving psychopaths is the norm, loathe to step in to resolve conflicts where there is no personal gain, there is nonetheless plenty of examples in modern time where this has happened. Because politicians still have human emotions. The war in Yugoslavia was one of those situations. The moment reports of genocide was confirmed, the social pressure in the western world got big enough that the UN changed gears from observers to enforcers. North Korea is isolated precisely because of the impression, most likely not propaganda, that the NK regime is horribly mistreating its inhabitants. If Korea only was a regional war with two superpowers playing war by proxy, there would be less demonizing going about. The Nato bombings of Libya would not have happened if oil was the only reason to intervene - France, UK and the US all loathed Ghadaffi and seized the opportunity to take him out. The invasion of Iraq would not have happened if oil was the only reason to stop Saddam Hussein - some incredibly clever spin from 9/11 made that happen, amplified by the cries of revenge on somebody.

The point I'm trying to make is - perceptions matter. Invasions do not happen for national psychopatic interests alone. Nor do they happen by humanitarianism alone. A combination is needed.

While there is no doubt that Assad has gone to civil war knowing that the result would be a humanitarian disaster for his own people, and that makes him a terrible person in my eyes, he still has some technical authority in that conflict. He was the elected president, and in a major part of the population of Syria supports him wholeheartedly. The angle that he is presenting is that he is just a legitimate president suppressing armed insurgents and islamistic terrorists (and Assad makes no attempts of separating these two) that seek to harm his citizens. That the citizens of Aleppo and region are suffering massively is simply out of his control to handle. This is the justification for Assad staying where he is, and the justification for Iran and Russia supporting Assad.

But proof that the Syrian Government ordered its own military to attack its own cities with chemical weapons... yeah, that shatters that angle completely. The next UN resolution to intervene in Syria like they did in Yugoslavia will be hard to veto for Russia without also having to answer very hard questions about protecting a man that provingly gases civilian innocents. Just like China would love to get rid of the North Korea headache, Putin would in very short time love to get rid of the Syrian headache.

The onus of that is on the proof. The proof does not exist at this point.

[Deleted]

As soon as they started showing images of children in a war, I knew the USA is preparing for something.
Disappointed with Trump, I thought he had balls to make his own decisions. Eehh...

[ItachiZaku]

I support him in that I want him to do good and do the right thing (right thing is highly debatable). I don't want him to suck.

I think lighting up Syria is for the best.

[Deleted]

I support him in that I want him to do good and do the right thing (right thing is highly debatable). I don't want him to suck.

I think lighting up Syria is for the best.

What's your problem? America is attacking another country without permission from anyone else.
That "chemical attack" wasn't investigated. And even if it would be, US should stop trying to police the whole world.

[Hashtronaut]

What's your problem? America is attacking another country without permission from anyone else.
That "chemical attack" wasn't investigated. And even if it would be, US should stop trying to police the whole world.

Should it?
Obama decided to chill out the US being a global force, and Syria becomes more aggressive while NK becomes more bold stupid. You can dislike Trump but whoever the next president was, had/has to deal with these countries it was inevitable.

[prwraith]

Doing one correct thing does not garner my support amid a battlefield of stupid, incorrect, childish things.

[ItachiZaku]

What's your problem? America is attacking another country without permission from anyone else.
That "chemical attack" wasn't investigated. And even if it would be, US should stop trying to police the whole world.

Trump lost 3 straight Call of Duty matches to Assad, just wasn't having it anymore.

[prwraith]

What's your problem? America is attacking another country without permission from anyone else.
That "chemical attack" wasn't investigated. And even if it would be, US should stop trying to police the whole world.

I think that's my biggest annoyance. This feels kneejerk. Nobody has really had time to deep dive into this. Let alone form a long thought out plan. Right now his plan is they crossed the line so they get bombs and then we forget about them.

[Ryme]

I don't like the current power vacuum that's appearing from his tenure and would like to see him succeed in as much as it's mutually beneficial for him to. Unfortunately, his positions and actions make this really hard to achieve; his initiative on Syria is monstrous.

So, I want to support him but he makes it very difficult to impossible to do so.

[paralleluniverse]

Following his first military attack of Syria, I've been noticing (on my personal social media accounts) backlash to the attack and people saying they won't support Trump anymore if he goes through with what he's doing right now. Do you support Trump?

Yes, Lying Trump is doing exactly what he accused Hillary Clinton of wanting to do: starting "World War 3" in Syria.

But, no, there is no backlash. Just look at /r/The_Donald. The Deplorable hypocrites are suddenly all-in on the US getting involved in the war in Syria to oust Assad, they love being lied to by Trump.

[schwarzkopf]

The simple fact is that rational people cannot support Trump ...

[Felya]

The premise of this thread doesn't make sense. If you supported Trump before this, did you ignore him saying he will bomb the shit out of them? Of all the things to flip you on Trump, this is what he promised. Flipping on Trump over this, is the same as flipping on him for Trumpcare not being single payer. Do you even know what you were supporting in the first place?

[Deleted]

The premise of this thread doesn't make sense. If you supported Trump before this, did you ignore him saying he will bomb the shit out of them? Of all the things to flip you on Trump, this is what he promised. Flipping on Trump over this, is the same as flipping on him for Trumpcare not being single payer. Do you even know what you were supporting in the first place?

He promised he would bomb ISIS. He didn't bomb them, he bombed Syrian government...

[zenkai]

Following his first military attack of Syria, I've been noticing (on my personal social media accounts) backlash to the attack and people saying they won't support Trump anymore if he goes through with what he's doing right now. Do you support Trump?

3 no options and 1 yes, wtf

[Ghostpanther]

3 no options and 1 yes, wtf

Yeah. I noticed that also. With no option for, I did not before, but now do.

[Demoncrash]

No. I don't trust people with small hands.

[Deleted]

That "heartfelt" speech people keep talking about was not his words.
Only a fool would think he suddenly turned into one of the good guys,
He is still a psychopath, egomaniac & narcisist who needs taken out of power ASAP

[Paranoid Android]

Yes. 100%. New Trump thread please.