04-12-2017, 12:50 PM
(04-12-2017, 05:05 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: And, also, not able to deem the Obama actions a failure, at minimum.
Huh?
Quote:You don't need long-term policy goals to say whether this action was good or bad. Even Hillary would have done the same. I think we're done here.
It doesn't seem like you a understand Dill was judging if the attack was a success or failure based upon long term policy or, put another way, our strategic goals.
What is good about launching an attack which violated the same UN resolution that Assad violated which prompted the attack?
Trump and Assad are guilty of violating the same agreement.
(04-09-2017, 03:15 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I'm not sure why there is praise or criticism. IMO, this was a necessary action as reprisal for failing to abide by the agreement, which was specifically to get rid of chemical weapons. Almost literally the only way to have done less would have been to do nothing.
So I'm not sure what you think this means in terms of long-run policy goals. We were kind of backed into a corner by virtue of making the agreement in the first place. Not that we shouldn't have gone that route, but Assad kind of forced our hand here. I don't see how this bombing, on its own, represents any "long-term policy", much less a change in one.
And it's quality spin claiming Trump triggered an attack with weapons Syria wasn't supposed to have....it's Trump's fault, not a failure of the prior administration. Nice.
So in your opinion it is "good" because "almost literally the only way to have done less would have been to do nothing"?
And even though it isn't worth of praise, you're going to praise it anyway?
