This is really sticky and dangerous. What, this happens one week after Trump announces his intention to leave Syria ?
We cannot be sure who did this for openers. It would well serve the "rebels" to do something to keep the USA in Syria. I don't see them having a problem with killing civilians, just as I don't see Assad having any problem doing the same in order to attain their desired ends.
If our response is to destroy Assad's airforce and airfields along with some Iranians and some Russian's (oops, stuff happens) that would be ok. That shoulda been done the first time Trump sent missiles. But taking out Assad would be a terrible idea, no matter how deserving he is of that. It would turn the whole region upside down. It would be worse than Libya. And suck us in even deeper.
Our interest is ISIS.
Best to keep Assad around and keep the chaos to a minimum. Bad as he is, he is balance against the worst possible outcome from happening where everybody loses.
This is really sticky and dangerous. What, this happens one week after Trump announces his intention to leave Syria ?
We cannot be sure who did this for openers. It would well serve the "rebels" to do something to keep the USA in Syria. I don't see them having a problem with killing civilians, just as I don't see Assad having any problem doing the same in order to attain their desired ends.
If our response is to destroy Assad's airforce and airfields along with some Iranians and some Russian's (oops, stuff happens) that would be ok. That shoulda been done the first time Trump sent missiles. But taking out Assad would be a terrible idea, no matter how deserving he is of that. It would turn the whole region upside down. It would be worse than Libya. And suck us in even deeper.
Our interest is ISIS.
Best to keep Assad around and keep the chaos to a minimum. Bad as he is, he is balance against the worst possible outcome from happening where everybody loses.
2¢
yeah cause Donnie has a master plan, right? I will stick to my guns on this. I think after all is said and done the one to bring him down will be Ms. Allred.
"Let Mueller stew. Let the Wag the Dog useful idiots at NBC natter on. Just do it. If not now, when?"
Hear hear.
If not the US, to lead the assault to rein in the atrocities Assad is inflicting on his population, then who?
This is really sticky and dangerous. What, this happens one week after Trump announces his intention to leave Syria ?
We cannot be sure who did this for openers. It would well serve the "rebels" to do something to keep the USA in Syria. I don't see them having a problem with killing civilians, just as I don't see Assad having any problem doing the same in order to attain their desired ends.
If our response is to destroy Assad's airforce and airfields along with some Iranians and some Russian's (oops, stuff happens) that would be ok. That shoulda been done the first time Trump sent missiles. But taking out Assad would be a terrible idea, no matter how deserving he is of that. It would turn the whole region upside down. It would be worse than Libya. And suck us in even deeper.
Our interest is ISIS.
Best to keep Assad around and keep the chaos to a minimum. Bad as he is, he is balance against the worst possible outcome from happening where everybody loses.
I read an opinion piece the other day that asked an interesting question. How do you know 'history' is being made, while it's happening. Nixon and Watergate was the example: did anyone realize at the time how important the events were? And the corollary, does what's happening now rise to that level of importance? Nixon's misdeeds pulled back the curtain on the Presidency and forever changed the office. Will Trump's actions cause a similar sea change?
Are we seeing history in the making? c.
I would assume that "History" is always being made; whether or not the events are (or will be) considered "important" probably can't be known until some time in the future. Who remembers James Stockdale : "Who am I? Why am I here?"
I read an opinion piece the other day that asked an interesting question. How do you know 'history' is being made, while it's happening. Nixon and Watergate was the example: did anyone realize at the time how important the events were? And the corollary, does what's happening now rise to that level of importance? Nixon's misdeeds pulled back the curtain on the Presidency and forever changed the office. Will Trump's actions cause a similar sea change?
I read an opinion piece the other day that asked an interesting question. How do you know 'history' is being made, while it's happening. Nixon and Watergate was the example: did anyone realize at the time how important the events were? And the corollary, does what's happening now rise to that level of importance? Nixon's misdeeds pulled back the curtain on the Presidency and forever changed the office. Will Trump's actions cause a similar sea change?
Didn't say no one was telling him to fire Mueller. Just who was doing the asking trying to stir the pot when its been made clear its not going to happen.
Now as for Trump's response, he's playing with you all, spoon feeding your frenzy emotions. Keeping you up all night worrying, cuz he can ...
I'm laughing with you. You must have forgotten the carefully cultured machismo you bought into:
Earlier on Monday, Trump floated the idea of firing the special counsel.
“Why don’t I just fire Mueller?” he asked in response to a reporter’s question. “Well, I think it’s a disgrace what’s going on. We’ll see what happens.”
Trump also said “many people have said” he should sack Mueller. Dobbs is certainly one of them.
I don't see no. I see dodging.
Didn't say no one was telling him to fire Mueller. Just who was doing the asking trying to stir the pot when its been made clear its not going to happen.
Now as for Trump's response, he's playing with you all, spoon feeding your frenzy emotions. Keeping you up all night worrying, cuz he can ...
You're being played by your media. They're the only ones asking the question which has been no over and over again. They're doing it to stir you up and their ratings. Trump ain't gonna fire Mueller. If he was, he woulda done it a long time ago. It would be the stupidest thing he could do right now.
Earlier on Monday, Trump floated the idea of firing the special counsel.
“Why don’t I just fire Mueller?” he asked in response to a reporter’s question. “Well, I think it’s a disgrace what’s going on. We’ll see what happens.”
Trump also said “many people have said” he should sack Mueller. Dobbs is certainly one of them.
But your media has you convinced that Trump is the stupidest thing breathing right now.
In the literal sense, yes. I don't bother with interpretation, but I watch him put together half-formed ideas and boastful, fact-less sentences, and his Twitterfeed is chaotic and juvenile. Yes. The media has me convinced.
I'm getting sleepy now. Sorry that you won't be. Well maybe you will, but there's a whole bunch of others who won't.
