Posted on 04/11/2017 5:07:02 AM PDT by Kaslin
Yes, in this situation, it does.
Nope.
Not many people wanted more war with Trump. I hope he doesn’t ruin his chance to help fix America by bogging us down in perpetual war. People really did not vote for that.
I hope he chooses wisely.
No, but I expected Trump to defend and promote conservative values.
I'm growing concerned. I'm probably wrong.
I support President’s surgical strike on Syria. I do not support a massive invasion into Syria.
The USA has very, very serious problems right here at home that will destroy us if not addressed - and soon.
That is the reality.
We put a majority of Republicans in charge to take care of business so we can once again be the land of the free; the home of the brave.
We do not see that happening, nor do we see evidence of any urgency to put this country on a proper heading.
Failing to react to aggression invites more agression.
Anyone who expected Pres. Trump to color between the lines is going to be disappointed.
b o amply demonstrated the futility of a policy of a “hands off” US. I don’t support a mass deployment of military to Syria. I agree with the missile strike, especially if, in fact, assad is responsible. Tillerson’s meet at the g7 with middle east countries is a good move.
Candidate Trump:
Repeal replace ACA
Cut Taxes to spur economic growth
Will not escalate conflict in Syria, no call for regime change.
President Trump:
Can’t repeal ACA,...oops
Will get around to cutting taxes eventually,.. maybe
We need regime change NOW in Syria, will start with illegal bombing of their military airfield (declared illegal by the UN).
Will Trump start wearing ugly pantsuits as well? We did not vote for this.
Your exactly right. If they think we can be mesmerized by focusing the news narratives on “foreign policy” they are sadly mistaken. They will pay politically if their domestic agenda is not enacted to a significant degree.
Yes. Especially since opposing Assad equals supporting our enemies.
By taking sides against Assad in Syria’s civil war, we have encouraged more agression.
He is defending conservative values. My Lord have you not paid attention to what he has accomplished?
The author of this article is either misinformed or dishonest. Hillary was advocating strikes against Assad when she was Obama's Secretary of State. Obama was willing to go along, and if it weren't for opposition from Congressional Republicans, we would have (at best) had a replay of Libya 2011 or more likely a quagmire like Iraq or Afghanistan.
The same people who (rightly) opposed the intervention when Hillary advocated it are going along with it when a Republican administration is doing the same.
A one-off strike like this one isn't a problem or threat to an America-first agenda. A program of regime change and nation-building is a threat, and I hope that President Trump is not moving in that direction. If that's what we wanted, we could have just voted for Lindsey Graham, Jeb Bush, or even Hillary Clinton.
You apparently aren’t paying to what Trump has already done
Get mad at congress if you want. Trump is doing what he promised
Trump has done all he can about ACA. He has the IRS no longer checking hence no penalty. He has Price rolling back regulations. Blame Ryan for not having a bill ready day one.
Tax reform must come from the house. Again the GOP fails to do their job
Trump has escalated nothing. He did get Putin’s and Xi’s attention. And the attention of the world
Lordy you pearl clutches are hysterical
We had telemetry that showed the flight path of the plane that dropped the gas, so they knew from where the plane took off.
Whether it was the Assad government, rebels, or a rogue military operation, wouldn't it still be an appropriate proportional response to knock out the site where the gas was stored and loaded onto planes?
I wonder whether the United States, in this case, can act as a sort of referee, saying that if you're going to war, there are certain rules of engagement that we are not going to allow you to break. One of those is the use of chemical weapons of indiscriminate destruction. We didn't just send a message with that strike, we destroyed a chemical weapons depot and the aircraft used to deliver them. Those weapons cannot be used again.
If an argument is that destroying the airbase weakens Assad's ability to fight Isis (even if he didn't order the attack), then I think there are other actors (like Russia) who will step up to fill the void on Syria's behalf. That's not ideal, but it's the field that Obama set for us.
Yes, this strike shakes things up a bit. Yes, there is some saber-rattling going on right now. I think that some of it is the players shuffling to reposition in light of the strike, and then things will settle down again. I do not believe this will lead to an escalation past the rhetoric going on right now, because people recognize the humanity of destroying the chemical weapons that were used in this way.
I heard concerns the other day that Putin will see Trump as a "one punch and run" leader, and will take this as free reign to escalate multiple times because the one punch was thrown, but I don't think so. Conventional military escalation is one thing, but the use of chemical weapons on civilians is NOT the event that world leaders want as justification for causing MORE destruction, when one side took the bold step to only surgically take out the source as a humanitarian act.
-PJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.