Posted on 04/10/2017 8:19:33 AM PDT by George Rand
Hawks always support hawkish action. Nothing to see here.
Yes, so many deeply “concerned” newbie trolls, bless their hearts ;-)
Also, the one world agenda is hell bent on taking out strong leaders around the globe so that it can more easily take over the reins of the world.
In actuality Muslim countries need strong leaders to control their many violence prone factions. Often the solution is much worth then the original problem when it comes to who replaces the strong leaders. It is a rare Muslim country that has a relatively decent ruler. If a ruler is tolerant and protects all of their people, including all the different factions of Islam, as well as Christians, Jews and others that is the best we can realistically expect.
Wait and see. He`s only been in office three months.
He said Syria was a bad call. That`s a pretty vague statement, but most of those watching him during the campaign understood him to be refering specifically to OBAMA`s policies in Syria, and not implying that he (Trump) would have no policy at all with respect to Syria.
And what was Trump`s chief objection to Obama`s Syrian policy? Two things, mainly. The first criticism adressed the way that Obama`s policies destablized the region, creating a myriad of problems, not the least of which is a dangerous refugee crisis. The other criticism was the way we were supporting and emboldening
ISIS and other unsavory groups in our effort to depose Assad.
Well with regards to the first objection (the destablizing effect of Syrian intervention) you may have noted that the destablization has already occured. Dealing with an already destable area requires a differant policy approach than dealing with a relatively stable region.
The second objection - that we were aiding ISIS in our effort to depose Assad - is in no way compromised by this airstrike. Trump has made it clear that this strike was specifically a response to the chemical weapons use.
Two other quick points. Trump was always clear that while serving the national interest would be his number one priority, he believed there could be occassional instances when we take action even when our vital national interests are not directly at stake. These are situations where the problem involves such a degree of evil, that an action may have to be taken based soley on the moral imperative to address such evil. Trump argued that the defeat of ISIS represents one such instance. The use of chemical weapons would seem to be another.
Lastly is the argument that many others have already made over the last few days, namely the fact that the Syrian attack didn`t occur in a vacuum, and sent a clear and not insignificant message to many other trouble spots and adversaries around the world, such as North Korea, China, Russia, and Iran.
Brilliantly stated. Your post deserves to be posted as a new thread.
Thanks
Welcome.
I meant what I said about posting it as a new thread. Front page, as a matter of fact ;)
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.