How does everyone feel about us attacking Syria?

[_EAllusion]

If you are trying to infer that Trump is doing this, then you are necessarily conceding the fact that you believe Trump's accusations about Obama's motives here are true.

This is some wonderful logic. If you accuse someone of doing something, then if someone accuses you of doing the very same thing later on, that proves your earlier allegation must've been true.

[_subgenius]

If you are trying to infer that Trump is doing this, then you are necessarily conceding the fact that you believe Trump's accusations about Obama's motives here are true.

This is some wonderful logic. If you accuse someone of doing something, then if someone accuses you of doing the very same thing later on, that proves your earlier allegation must've been true.

I will type slowly so you can follow.
You have left someone out of your logic vacuum.

The poster is using an accusation by Trump to infer that Trump is doing the same thing.

So the "logic" in question is Hawkeye's (yes, this poster has exhibited logic as of yet, but it remains a possibility).

So, what does this conclude? Well, Hawkeye either believes the following allegation is true or is false...or perhaps "is confusing":
"Obama only attacked Syria to take focus away from his plummeting approval ratings"
Likewise
Hawkeye either believes the following allegation is true or is false...or perhaps "is confusing":
"Trump only attacked Syria to take focus away from his plummeting approval ratings"

this last allegation is the subject of my hypothetical for the poster's motivation for posting the original allegation (see also my use of the word "IF"), especially since such an inference is irrelevant outside of a gossip-mongering mentality (a.k.a. hair-fire brigade).

So, neither of these allegations can prove or disprove each other, and my post did not claim as much...my post was directed at what Hawkeye must necessarily believe to be true IF the inference was intended. There is no other logical reason for Hawkeye to have posted the allegation...notwithstanding the absurdityignorance of Hawkeye assuming that the attacks have identical motivations and circumstances. Hawkeye's post is nothing more convenient partisan cynicism and the smell of burnt hair is becoming nauseating and childish.

[_Hawkeye]

We already know Trump is bombing Syria as a diversion from is trainwreck of an administration. Prior to his election he was against bombing other countries. Then suddenly it became convenient to be concerned about all those poor children. You know, the ones he refuses to allow to seek refuge here because he thinks they're terrorists in training.

Only a moron would say Trump's bombs will have any effect. I seem to recall him using the "poor children" as an excuse for bombing Syria earlier last year. You mock Obama for not bombing Syria (even though he managed to successfully get rid of 600 tons of chemical weapons) but obviously bombing does no good either. I mean, we bombed them last year, and here they are yet again using chemical weapons. And Trump prewarns Russia to flee before the bombs.

Your dumb cartoon memes only pander to Right Wing morons who think bombs work.

[_EAllusion]

I will type slowly so you can follow.

This metaphor makes sense. Perhaps another time you can regale us with your understanding of how message boards work.

The poster is using an accusation by Trump to infer that Trump is doing the same thing.

No he isn't. Glad I could clear up your confusion.

[_subgenius]

No he isn't. Glad I could clear up your confusion.

Notwithstanding your incredible insight for the convenient and retroactive motive.
Oh, then the citation is just irrelevant and superfluous, thank you for the clarification.

[_EAllusion]

Notwithstanding your incredible insight for the convenient and retroactive motive.
Oh, then the citation is just irrelevant and superfluous, thank you for the clarification.

It's possible to believe that Trump is wagging the dog for reasons other than his previous tweets, then believe that his previous tweets reveal a hypocrisy. That such thinking seems to be outside the horizon of your imagination explains why you went off on such poorly thought out criticism. And you went through the trouble of typing slowly and everything.

Maybe type really slowly next time.

[_subgenius]

We already know Trump is bombing Syria as a diversion from is trainwreck of an administration.

funny definition of "know" you got there... create to prove it?
CFR

Prior to his election he was against bombing other countries. Then suddenly it became convenient to be concerned about all those poor children.

Concern never seemed to even be inconvenient for Obama. Glad you're not sentimental either.

You know, the ones he refuses to allow to seek refuge here because he thinks they're terrorists in training.

what an ignorant statement, but ironically kinda "ballsy".... singular ballsy, of course.

Only a moron would say Trump's bombs will have any effect.

a French and British country disagree with you.

I seem to recall him using the "poor children" as an excuse for bombing Syria earlier last year. You mock Obama for not bombing Syria (even though he managed to successfully get rid of 600 tons of chemical weapons) but obviously bombing does no good either. I mean, we bombed them last year, and here they are yet again using chemical weapons. And Trump prewarns Russia to flee before the bombs.

my lawd your post is an ignorant hair fire of stupidity.

Your dumb cartoon memes only pander to Right Wing morons who think bombs work.

no, really...stupid and missing something...something meaningful like facts, sense, reason, or an egg shaped something.

[_Hawkeye]

I just proved you wrong on your stupid claim that bombing Syria would have done something to stop their use of chemical weapons, probably provided by the Russians. We know for a fact that it doesn't work because this is something we tried last year, and yet a year later they're still doing it. So why is it a hypothetical bombing in 2016 by Obama would have ended everything yet Trump's bombing of 2017 could not? You don't explain anything because you're an idiot. And a callous one at that. You know who I am and where I live. If you had half the balls you pretend to have you wouldn't be demeaning people behind a pseudonym in response to being refuted every time. Don't even pretend you want to go down this route with me. If you did, you can come see me and find out how one ball is all that is needed to manhandle a little sniveling weasel like you.

And Obama's actions didn't "do nothing" they effectively got rid of 1,300 tons of chemical weapons. What has Trump done? He's made a couple of "statement" bombings only after telling Russia to evacuate first.

[_subgenius]

I just proved you wrong on your stupid claim that bombing Syria would have done something to stop their use of chemical weapons,

who is the subject of your pronoun here? because I can't find the "stupid claim" you are referring to...can you link to that claim, or at least provide a subject for which you intend to later refer to with a pronoun?

probably provided by the Russians.

We know for a fact that it doesn't work because this is something we tried last year, and yet a year later they're still doing it.

Um, this is not how you "know something for a fact"...but i get ya, you really have not paid much attention to this issue unless it is above the fold.

So why is it a hypothetical bombing in 2016 by Obama would have ended everything yet Trump's bombing of 2017 could not?

huh? I think the question you should ask is "why did Obama's impotent foreign policy fail with Syria?" or "Why did Obama kicking the can down the road just result in a can kicked down the road?"

You don't explain anything because you're an idiot.

Naw, I do explain things but it is my burden if you can't comprehend the explanation...which is why I have recommended community college to you on other issues.
Nevertheless, me being an idiot does not conclude with your being anything more than just another idiot....but kudos on your efforts to convince everyone that your posts are in fact idiotic.

And a callous one at that. You know who I am and where I live.

Callous is a subjective, and emotional, charge...but hit dawg hollers.

If you had half the balls

now that is funny.

you pretend to have

I do not, unlike others, pretend to have any more or less balls than i actually possess.

you wouldn't be demeaning people behind a pseudonym in response to being refuted every time.

I honestly do not understand what you are implying here - but it would seem that you believe I post on this forum under other user names?...i can assure that i do not.....nor do i need to, and i think that is abundantly clear....but it is ironic that you feel the need to hide behind a pseudonym.....you clearlypost under 2 different identities here, whereas i do not....you doth protest too much.

Don't even pretend you want to go down this route with me. If you did, you can come see me and find out how one ball is all that is needed to manhandle a little sniveling weasel like you.

you said "manhandle".

And Obama's actions didn't "do nothing" they effectively got rid of 1,300 tons of chemical weapons.

Yeah, those Syrians need to stop complaining and stop being refugees...Obama tcb'ed for sure!

What has Trump done?

more than Obama.

He's made a couple of "statement" bombings only after telling Russia to evacuate first.

I see...when Obama made pre-strike announcement it was no big deal...but Trump does it and suddenly the tin-foil hat comes out...but i suppose you think it better to escalate the situation into something way more catastrophic than just a proxy war...got it!

[_Xenophon]

One of the intriguing story lines out of this is how willingly Congress seems to be in giving up their Article 1 powers. I think this White House would be hard pressed to prove their was clear danger to the American people to justify this. Given how much crap Obama caught for some of his Syrian actions (rightfully so, in my opinion) you would expect more outcry here.

For those curious, I thought this article over at Lawfare did a pretty good job laying down what legal arguments there are for the strikes and why they are dubious at best.

As we wrote before Trump’s announcement, there is no apparent domestic or international legal authority for the strikes. Although the United States has not offered a formal legal argument, a number of legal theories have been floated in recent days. We address them each briefly here.

As to the Obama "red line" comment. I suspect you can find many in that administration, probably Obama included, that wish they had handled the situation differently. Obama's desire to keep out of combat (excessive drone use aside) made him very skittish to use force. We can "what-if" those statements to death but the point remains we are dealing with the situation now, as is and not as something else. It remains to be seen that escalating tensions will be helpful and I'm weary of being drawn into a much larger conflict because of our own actions.

I have seen it floated elsewhere, apologies if it has already been mentioned. In some ways it feels like this is almost what Assad wanted, these strikes probably earned increased involvement and support from Russia. I doubt this was some highly calculated play on Syria's part but it may play well for them in some ways.