Maybe. Bill O’Reilly’s sexual misconduct may not shock Trump, but somebody using sarin nerve gas against kids sure does.
“I now have responsibility,” Trump said Wednesday at a news conference with King Abdullah II of Jordan in the Rose Garden at the White House. “It crossed a lot of lines for me. When you kill innocent children, innocent babies — babies, little babies — with a chemical gas that is so lethal … that crosses many, many lines, beyond a red line.”
“It’s very, very possible that my attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much,” Trump said.
What does that mean? Who knows.
We’re about to find out once and for all if he’s really an agent of Russia or a Republican, I guess, depending on what he does. Meaning that he’s either going to ignore what Assad does, which Putin wants, or he will make an emotional decision to start bombing just to show up Obama one more time and make his worst critics in the Senate (McCain and Rubio) happy.
I have two thoughts on this. The first is that this situation is not only why I would never want to be the President of the United States nor do I understand why anyone else would want to either. Regardless of what Trump does or doesn’t do, kids are going to die. Either we’ll kill them accidentally or Assad will kill them because he feels like it.
I’m pretty sure every single president since FDR, minimum, has had to send guys to kill other people or die trying. I don’t understand how they cope with it, really. Is there a Presidential Grief Counselor? If so, that should be the highest paid federal employee. Anyway, I wouldn’t be able to handle it.
The reason I say that is that I fully understand Trump’s outrage and urge to “do something”. He is under a tremendous amount of pressure to act in Syria, both because of his feeling of “responsibility” and the incessant needling by that warmongering asshole John McCain.
My other thought is that one of the top five reasons I voted for Trump was that I thought he was less War Crazed of the two major candidates. You can argue with me all you like, but Clinton was creaming her pantsuit in anticipation of dragging us into more international conflicts. Trump convinced me that he wasn’t interested in any further needless military interventions and I’d prefer not to be proven wrong.
I’ve seen the images coming out of Syria. Yeah, it’s awful.
But it isn’t our war.
It isn’t our fault either. There’s nothing we stand to gain from it. It isn’t even within our ability to resolve. I’m not indifferent to human suffering, but I don’t support any war that doesn’t further the best interests of the United States. There’s no way I support Trump if he moves forward with military action against the Assad regime.
With that, I leave you with this to ponder.
UPDATE: Oh. He did the “I’m going to show Obama up” one.
Fuck.
My guess was that Trump’s hardcore supporters would be opposed to this, that it might be what finally gets them to turn against him.
You know what? I’m not so sure it will. I predict that we’ll see them cheerfully claiming that this proves he’s a more decisive leader than that wuss Obama. Also, he’s clearly not a Russian stooge. Anyone want to take bets on how we’ll see this spun in the morning?
This move benefits nobody but ISIS and al Qaeda, even if it is just a limited retaliatory strike.
Call me disgusted. This isn’t what I voted for.
Leave a Reply
61 Comments on "Maybe Trump Will Seek Regime Change in Syria Maybe"
The war we’re heading for is with China. I think it’s probably unstoppable. With Trump, I at least hoped we could realign Russia with us against them. Clinton was opposed to Russia.
We get involved in Syria on the side of overthrowing Assad, then kiss that advantage of Trump’s goodbye. Nothing good can come of it.
You think we’re headed for all out war with China? Cause that’s going to be ugly if/when it happens. Nuclear ugly.
Yeah, I do. I think the same forces that brought us into conflict with Japan are now at work with China.
I don’t want war with China, but I think we’re both being “pulled” toward it by geopolitical, economic, and historical forces.
My money is on Iran and or/N Korea.
I hope that we are not stupid enough to get into it with China, even as stupid as we are. I know that China doesn’t want a war with us, so we’d have to work extra hard to provoke them.
You really can’t separate North Korea from China though. Anything we do to NK is going to affect China in the form of a refugee crisis, nuclear fallout, or what have you.
Iran would be a war of choice. I think there’s plenty we can do to keep them busy in the Middle East without them becoming a problem we have to confront anytime soon.
They are all wars of choice. Literally none of the nations mentioned this far are attacking us or even our treaty allies.
People in this administration are itching to get some revenge on Iran. This feels very much like the lead up to the Iraq war. My gut says that’s where we are heading.
The most likely scenario with Iran is unfortunately Israel getting involved. They are absolutely against a nuclear Iran (and I don’t blame them for that posture considering the history). I think Israel will reach a point where they feel pressured to openly attack Iran to try to prevent that, which will just escalate with other countries, and it won’t end well. The only question would be how long it takes us to get involved at that point.
None of the things you describe are worth a war with China, to me.
Especially the islands. Yes, they are building them, but who are we protecting here, Vietnam? The Philippines?
Trade within the South China sea. It’s a major artery for all sorts of goods, particularly oil. The Chinese, if they can get uncontested naval control of that area, can choose to shut it down, exercise control over all of the nations in the region, and apply pressure on us as it sees fit. We can’t allow it to happen. It is a threat to us and the freedom of the seas that we’ve protected since 1945.
It’s essential to both of us and that’s the sort of thing countries end up fighting over.
Don’t let it be said that I only post article to support my own point – http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-philippines-idUSKBN1780NR?
Here’s a good link for you on that topic. Took me a bit to find it again. Search the page for “South China Sea” to find the relevant bits.
http://index.heritage.org/military/2016/assessments/threats/asia/
Nowhere did I claim my list is “worth a war with China”, though the cyber-security attacks against our national security come closest to being such in my mind. You said China didn’t want a war, so I provided evidence to the contrary, which demonstrates a concerted effort to push towards conflict.
That’s where we disagree. I don’t think the stuff you listed demonstrates a push towards war. As I said, I don’t believe they want war. They are asserting their dominance in the region, same as us.
Choosing to see everything as an effort to push towards conflict, without any understanding of the history or the culture of your opponent, is exactly the attitude that leads to war.
I can, maybe, see Thrill’s point about trade routes, but cyber-security? Is Germany going to attack us because we hacked Merkel’s phone?
That’s possible, and scary to think about. In a conventional war, they wouldn’t stand a chance. Unfortunately the next world war won’t be conventional. How soon do you think it is likely to happen? With all of the moves I outlined below, it sure seems like they are provoking us, or at least seeing how far they can push before we push back.
Also, from a Generation Theory standpoint, China is in a “Fourth Turning” and so are we. Historically, wars are much more likely to happen between competing powers when both are there at the same time.
Russia is in a “Second Turning”, if you were curious. That’s being demonstrated by the Putin protests.
If you’re a believer in Gen Theory like me, you start to see it lining up. It doesn’t mean I don’t think we should try to avoid war, but it does mean that we’d better pray both governments move cautiously.
Even if you believe this theory, it’s difficult to apply to societies like Russia and China which are very different psychologically from the Anglo-Saxon mentality that was used to construct the archetypes.
Individualism, the relationship of the individual to family/society, these cornerstones of the theory are completely opposite almost in Asian cultures.
Judging China, say, by your theory, would say that it’s been on a High for thousands of years.
Just found this in regards to China.
I guess the meeting went well!
I don’t think those are meaningful concessions. We were after IP protections and Nork. Lets see what the 100 day plan brings.
Looks like mashav wins the prize in this round of “Guess WTF Trump Is Going to Do”
I can’t think of a time I’ve been less happy to win.
I want him to fail in some of his campaign promises. This was not one of them. This was my top objection to Hillary, the only thing I thought he would do better.
What a freaking week. I’m ready for the DJ thread. Get my mind off things.
I’m glad I didn’t have to make the call. If he had done nothing in response to the chemical weapon attack, he would have been criticized as well. Just hoping he doesn’t decide to invade.
This is one of the reasons I never liked McCain as the Republican nominee. Back in ’08 he was talking about supporting Georgia against Russia like it was World War Two. Now he’s one of the hawks on Ukraine and Syria. Honestly there aren’t any good options here if we do anything.
Nothing McCain does ever makes sense to me. We’ll be so much better off when he leaves the Senate.
I’d also like to add RIP Don Rickles, one of the funniest insult comics ever.
I think too much is being made of Bannon’s removal from the NSC. It’s a bigger concern to me that Russiagate might be making it politically impossible for Trump to negotiate with Putin.
I don’t think we can ally with Russia, but there are areas where we need their cooperation or for them to at least not give us problems.
Unlike China, Russia doesn’t directly threaten anything that’s vital to us. However, there are areas where they can make things more difficult (Iran) or easier (Syria) if we choose to engage. We should be engaging them, not pretending like they’re our enemies.
Bargaining with Russia probably isn’t the best move. I’m for just sitting Syria out because both solutions suck equally bad. Another secular Middle East dictator that gases his own people or another Islamic theocracy turned failed state.
How could Russia make either of those options more paletable to us?
And I say Europe isn’t.
The only part of that I’ll agree with is that if Trump goes after Assad, he’s toast. Even his most hardcore supporters are pointedly telling him that they won’t tolerate it.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/06/politics/donald-trump-syria-military/index.html
Yep. He’s toast.
Trump launches attacks:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-launches-missiles-syrian-base-after-chemical-weapons-attack-n743636?cid=eml_nbn_20170406
…………….
oh WTF> we attacked Syria already…..?
And it looks like Trump has decided what he wants to do.
One good thing about this is that it might force Putin to publicly disavow Assad and let him hang. But we’ll see, as this has the potential to escalate very rapidly.
might lite a fire under Xi’s ass to sort out the Nork issue
The Russians have already started walking back their support. Earlier today they said it was ‘not unconditional’ Let’s hope this means they were at least notified before we went and bombed the joint
Apparently they were.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/us-officials-confirm-russia-was-notified-before-syria-strike/article/2619618
They notified the Syrians before the strike and then suspended the Memorandum of Understanding on Prevention of Flight Safety Incidents in the course of operations in Syria signed with the US.
So much for being friends with Putin.
The only winner – https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/788988/ISIS-Islamic-State-Syria-ISIL-daesh-Donald-Trump-Syria-Missile-Strike-USA/amp
Yep. Benefits nobody but ISIS and AQ. It’s now harder for coalition aircraft to get in to bomb them or for Syrian aircraft to either.
But hey, totally worth it to show what a pansy Obama was.
Yeah, I’ve been mulling an “Is Trump a Complete Evil Genius?” post in reaction to the news.
Seriously, this is some outstanding supervillainy, if I’m seeing it right.
I don’t think it’s his plan. This smells like the FSB playbook to me.
Putin benefits from this way more than Trump. If the price of oil goes up, the sanctions are lifted and he doesn’t have to give up any ground, it will help him financially and in the coming elections.
Convenient that this would occur just as his domestic ratings were getting shaky.
UPDATED: Fuck.
Welp, here’s what a couple of his base supporters are saying:
This one calls it smart: https://twitter.com/mitchellvii/status/850174165663580160
This one is confused and angry: https://twitter.com/bakedalaska
Still waiting to see the consensus.
I’ll take your bet. Baked Alaska is one of those hardcore alt-right white nationalists that propelled trump. He was considered “too extreme” and disinvited from even the alt-right’s victory lap party “trumpapolooza” months ago. If he’s crying foul you can bet cernovich and the other nihilists are too.
Stranahan’s timeline is full of anti-trump rhetoric and some of the other hardliners are too.
It’s not too much of a bet because I pretty fairly called this one above, I believe.
It’s a rock and a hard place thing (politically I mean). Trump had said that going into Syria was wrong, but also that Obama was weak not to. Which one is best for him going forward? I’d say the ‘strong man’ play as opposed to the ‘explaining the complexities of the issue’ play.