Posted:
#51
since i criticized (and ridiculed, of course) trump in the other thread, i should answer this one. and my answer to this question is i don't have an answer. one, i don't know enough about the particulars in syria and middle east relationships plus russie and whomever else to have a great idea. two, i'm not sure there is a good idea of what should be done.
that being said, just because we don't know what to do doesn't mean we can't identify when an action appears to be friggin stupid or designed to serve some ulterior motive like improve approval ratings as trump alluded to himself before.
i would tend to agree with shiek on these things. the true conservative approach. you don't go attacking countries unless it is necessary for defense. it makes no sense that trump would attack syria after their 100th chemical attack against the citizens when he wasn't even willing to take some of them into our country when they've been dealing with this garbage for years.
it also seems clear that syria and similar countries have been a clusterfuck for a while and will continue to be. us dropping a few bombs on an airstrip without even incapacitating, what purpose does that serve other than waste money?
also, if we wanted to take out assad. who do we think will take over. some benevolent leader? when does US induced regime change ever work?
this is a continuing problem with non-conservative (mostly republican but democratic as well) government. sure there may be a situation that is problematic (and that's obviously putting it lightly here), but if our government can't improve it, as it usually can't because government isn't good at that from police to local government to state government to federal government, then it should largely stay the f*ck out of things.
so if i had to answer, i would say, maybe there is something our high priced intelligence community could recommend that would improve things for victims in syria and the country as a whoile. i doubt any of us really know what that is, if it exists. but if it does and can be done with relatively minimally involvement by us and certainly not bombs and war which always people things up, then i say do that.
beyond that, as i've said before, we take in immigrants and refugees every day and despite what trump says, they really aren't the scary brown killers and rapists he may want us to believe. we should take a reasonable number of these kids and parents in to try and save them. we can easily do that without wasting a lot of our money and friggin things up more by bombing whatever we bombed for whatever reason we did it which won't help anything.
that being said, just because we don't know what to do doesn't mean we can't identify when an action appears to be friggin stupid or designed to serve some ulterior motive like improve approval ratings as trump alluded to himself before.
i would tend to agree with shiek on these things. the true conservative approach. you don't go attacking countries unless it is necessary for defense. it makes no sense that trump would attack syria after their 100th chemical attack against the citizens when he wasn't even willing to take some of them into our country when they've been dealing with this garbage for years.
it also seems clear that syria and similar countries have been a clusterfuck for a while and will continue to be. us dropping a few bombs on an airstrip without even incapacitating, what purpose does that serve other than waste money?
also, if we wanted to take out assad. who do we think will take over. some benevolent leader? when does US induced regime change ever work?
this is a continuing problem with non-conservative (mostly republican but democratic as well) government. sure there may be a situation that is problematic (and that's obviously putting it lightly here), but if our government can't improve it, as it usually can't because government isn't good at that from police to local government to state government to federal government, then it should largely stay the f*ck out of things.
so if i had to answer, i would say, maybe there is something our high priced intelligence community could recommend that would improve things for victims in syria and the country as a whoile. i doubt any of us really know what that is, if it exists. but if it does and can be done with relatively minimally involvement by us and certainly not bombs and war which always people things up, then i say do that.
beyond that, as i've said before, we take in immigrants and refugees every day and despite what trump says, they really aren't the scary brown killers and rapists he may want us to believe. we should take a reasonable number of these kids and parents in to try and save them. we can easily do that without wasting a lot of our money and friggin things up more by bombing whatever we bombed for whatever reason we did it which won't help anything.
0
......knock the rust off and have a blast man. 
Hot Forum Topics
