[rooster]

The more I see of Trump the more I think that every criticism he spoke of on Hillary is exactly what he's doing.

Trump supporters voted for their version of Hillary.

Are you really shedding tears over the bombing of an airfield that was used to conduct chemical warfare?

That's... not even close to what he said.

[Tom Bishop]

The more I see of Trump the more I think that every criticism he spoke of on Hillary is exactly what he's doing.

Trump supporters voted for their version of Hillary.

Are you really shedding tears over the bombing of an airfield that was used to conduct chemical warfare?

That's... not even close to what he said.

If you are criticizing Trump for bombing this airfield that is exactly what you are doing.

[rooster]

I think he's criticizing Trump making taking steps towards warfare when people didn't like Hillary cause they thought she was a warmonger.

Hillary firing missiles bad.
Trump firing missiles good.

[Tom Bishop]

I think he's criticizing Trump making taking steps towards warfare when people didn't like Hillary cause they thought she was a warmonger.

Hillary firing missiles bad.
Trump firing missiles good.

So, if Syria decides again to commit genocide against innocents, Trump shouldn't stop them because it makes him a warmonger and hypocritical because he criticized other people for engaging in or supporting warfare in the past? 

Those arguments appear to be defending genocide.

[rooster]

Yes, hypocritical.

[Roundy]

Definitely hypocritical.

[Tom Bishop]

https://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/trumptweet-syria-4.jpg

Yes, hypocritical.

So that means Syria can execute an American politician on television, commit a 9/11 type attack, or mass murder innocents now and Trump should do nothing about it because doing so would be hypocritical?

Trump is definitely talking about the context of whatever situation was happening back then in those tweets. It's not a one size fits all. Any reasonable person knows that Trump wasn't saying that we should never attack Syria again, no matter what they do. Do you not feel embarrassment when making these arguments?

[Lord Dave]

https://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/trumptweet-syria-4.jpg

Yes, hypocritical.

So that means Syria can execute an American politician on television, commit a 9/11 type attack, or mass murder innocents now and Trump should do nothing about it because doing so would be hypocritical?

Trump is definitely talking about the context of whatever situation was happening back then in those tweets. It's not a one size fits all. Any reasonable person knows that Trump wasn't saying that we should never attack Syria again, no matter what they do. Do you not feel embarrassment when making these arguments?

You're right, one size doesn't fit all.
But.... Those tweets are in response to a bill being drafted in the senate to authorize Obama to launch non-boots on the ground attacks (so bombings) of Assad forces in response to their use of chemical weapons which killed hundreds of people(635 at least).


So it is literally the same situation.  So yes, hypocrit. 

[DuckDodgers]

To add to Dave's post, the Russian and Syrian government claimed the 2013 chemical weapon attack was a false flag orchestrated by the rebels. Now where have we heard that story lately?

[Tom Bishop]

https://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/trumptweet-syria-4.jpg

Yes, hypocritical.

So that means Syria can execute an American politician on television, commit a 9/11 type attack, or mass murder innocents now and Trump should do nothing about it because doing so would be hypocritical?

Trump is definitely talking about the context of whatever situation was happening back then in those tweets. It's not a one size fits all. Any reasonable person knows that Trump wasn't saying that we should never attack Syria again, no matter what they do. Do you not feel embarrassment when making these arguments?

You're right, one size doesn't fit all.
But.... Those tweets are in response to a bill being drafted in the senate to authorize Obama to launch non-boots on the ground attacks (so bombings) of Assad forces in response to their use of chemical weapons which killed hundreds of people(635 at least).


So it is literally the same situation.  So yes, hypocrit.

Obama wanted a formal decision to intervene in the Syrian Civil War that would take place over months. Trump made a surgical strike against equipment and which had few casualties, which was basically just a shot across the bow.

I hardly see the similarity. A lot more Syrians would have died with what Obama wanted, and it woild have engaged the US into further conflict with Russia.

[Lord Dave]

https://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/trumptweet-syria-4.jpg

Yes, hypocritical.

So that means Syria can execute an American politician on television, commit a 9/11 type attack, or mass murder innocents now and Trump should do nothing about it because doing so would be hypocritical?

Trump is definitely talking about the context of whatever situation was happening back then in those tweets. It's not a one size fits all. Any reasonable person knows that Trump wasn't saying that we should never attack Syria again, no matter what they do. Do you not feel embarrassment when making these arguments?

You're right, one size doesn't fit all.
But.... Those tweets are in response to a bill being drafted in the senate to authorize Obama to launch non-boots on the ground attacks (so bombings) of Assad forces in response to their use of chemical weapons which killed hundreds of people(635 at least).


So it is literally the same situation.  So yes, hypocrit.

Obama wanted a formal decision to intervene in the Syrian Civil War that would take place over months. Trump made a surgical strike against equipment and which had few casualties, which was basically just a shot across the bow.

I hardly see the similarity. A lot more Syrians would have died with what Obama wanted, and it woild have engaged the US into further conflict with Russia.

1. Trump intervened without congressional approval and thus, could do so again at his whim.  Why would he suddenly stop with just one attack on one airport?  Not even on the chemical weapons stores?
2. Russia has formally suspended a deal which keeps Russian and US plans from flying in the same area with information sharing.
3. Russia has sent a destroyer to a port city as a show of force.

So while your first point is true to some extent, we don't know if Trump will continue.  The rest, however, is pretty much exactly what you just said.  Of course, Trump said Obama would do this when his poll numbers were in tailspin (just with Lybia or Iran) and Trump's poll numbers are in Tailspin so this might be just a one off shot to get praise.

[rooster]

Do you not feel embarrassment when making these arguments?

Yes, I'm terribly embarrassed that I knew what those tweets were referring to and you didn't. Poor chap.

[Lord Dave]

Do you not feel embarrassment when making these arguments?

Yes, I'm terribly embarrassed that I knew what those tweets were referring to and you didn't. Poor chap.

$10 says every one of those likes would also like: "The president doesn't need congressional approval to attack Syria!"

[Tom Bishop]

1. Trump intervened without congressional approval and thus, could do so again at his whim.  Why would he suddenly stop with just one attack on one airport?  Not even on the chemical weapons stores?
2. Russia has formally suspended a deal which keeps Russian and US plans from flying in the same area with information sharing.
3. Russia has sent a destroyer to a port city as a show of force.

So while your first point is true to some extent, we don't know if Trump will continue.  The rest, however, is pretty much exactly what you just said.  Of course, Trump said Obama would do this when his poll numbers were in tailspin (just with Lybia or Iran) and Trump's poll numbers are in Tailspin so this might be just a one off shot to get praise.

After the Obama bill failed in Congress the US was able to get Syria to agree to eliminate 100% of their chemical weapons, which they now apparently lied about.

Of course a show of force is necessary. This has nothing to do with Trump prefering not to stir conflict in Syria. We had a deal and they broke it.

[Tom Bishop]

Do you not feel embarrassment when making these arguments?

Yes, I'm terribly embarrassed that I knew what those tweets were referring to and you didn't. Poor chap.

After that Trump tweet happened the US was able to make a deal with Syria to purge their chemical weapons. They lied, so this is what happens.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/07/susan-rice-obama-colleagues-take-heat-for-past-claims-on-syria-chemical-weapons-purge.html

You are being deliberately blind to reason. As if some old tweet by Trump prefering not to engage in conflict means that he should let them get away with murdering innocent men, women, and children with chemical weapons.

The position you and Dave are espousing is  telling of true intentions.

[rooster]

Just pointing out that he's a hypocrite and a warmonger.

You really think Trump's move is going to stop the murder of innocent people? It's a move to help his ratings and detract from Russian colluding.

[Tom Bishop]

Just pointing out that he's a hypocrite and a warmonger.

You really think Trump's move is going to stop the murder of innocent people? It's a move to help his ratings and detract from Russian colluding.

Diplomacy was tried, as Trump prefered, and the Obama administration failed at it. Obama should have been a better manager to ensure that the stockpiles were eliminated.

Trump is simply dealing with Obama's mistakes and poor performance as president.

[rooster]

“We were able to find a solution that didn’t necessitate the use of force that actually removed the chemical weapons that were known from Syria, in a way that the use of force would never have accomplished,” she boasted. “We were able to get the Syrian government to voluntarily and verifiably give up its chemical weapons stockpile.”

I don't see how they lied. You can try and reach agreements but it doesn't guarantee the total removal of chemical weapons. You can't micromanage a country that doesn't want to work with you.

Whether or not the use of force will keep them in line remains to be seen. But I really doubt it.
And I'm really tired of people thinking the USA is going to save Syria. I know Syrians are trying to find hope wherever they can but we don't have a great track record.

[Lord Dave]

Well the agreement was that Russia would remove and destroy the weapons.
You know, Trump's friend.


And this isn't the first time chemical weapons have been used since.  Nor have only assad used chemical weapons.


But the point still stands: Trump is only doing this because of his ratings.  I would say otherwise but he's absolutely ok with killing the families of terrorists, kids included.  Plus, he's said that when a president has poor poll ratings, attacking a country helps. 


None of us are saying what Assad allegedly did was right.
I'm not saying the response was unwarrented.


But the motivation?  Totally selfish, contradictory to platform, and hypocritical.

[garygreen]

http://shareblue.com/sean-spicer-just-called-russia-an-ally/

NOW WHO'S THE DEAN???