You don't see how millions of uneducated brainwashed poor people given free reign could wind up bad in a country on the brink of financial crisis (the double digit growth will eventually contract and you want millions of migrants thrown into the mix)? Are you saying you'd force them to stay in the country side? Because they'll migrate to the cities like everyone else. Unlike Europe where the SJW mentality permeates with multiculturalism, the Chinese don't give a fuck. They aren't as welcoming and it would really end bad for those displaced.
Well the bombing of Syria was unexpected news to wake up to. There were 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from US warships positioned in the Mediterranean Sea. The target was an airbase from which the chemical weapons used by the Syrian government on Tuesday were deployed. The Russians were warned of the attack ahead of time. There were 5-6 casualties of the bombing, all Syrian military personnel. Given those facts, some idle speculation: 1) Its interesting that the US Military notified both the Kremlin and the Russian troops on the ground ahead of time independently. Perhaps they were concerned that Putin would deliberately let his own troops get killed to claim it was an attack on the Russians. 2) However, the Russians stated yesterday (and after the original chemical attack) that their support of the Assad regime is not unconditional. Plus, the Russians have the S-400 missile defense system deployed in the Middle East, very likely Syria through at least 2020. The S-400 system can track and destroy up to 80 targets simultaneously, specifically cruise missiles. Which means the Russians not only knew about the incoming attack, but had the exact capability to stop it and didnt. Although Putin is doing a bit of hand wringing, he knows he cant really do anything about it and Syria is not worth an escalation with the US. 3) The attack was ordered and occurred while Trump was having dinner with the Chinese President. This was quite the power play by Trump in front of the Chinese and the Russians, especially the global response has been overwhelmingly in support of the US action. The Russians essentially have to stand by and take it and the Xi Jingping was at Mar Lago to specifically discuss North Korea among other topics.
I think it could have been different in this case and in previous cases, when the Democrats changed the rule on lower court appointees, if the majority party had forced the minority to actually, you know, filibuster. Stand up there and talk for hours or even days until one side breaks. Now they just all accept that the votes aren't there to move it out of committee and move on to the next issue. Of course, it seems really backward that the threshold to allow any issue to come to a vote is higher than the threshold to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
It really is fun watching GOP politicians do a complete and utter 180 on Syria now that Obama isn't President. But people like Ryan and Rubio are scumbags regardless.
There have been some conspiracy theories around that... Rand Paul has been basically saying (over the last 12 hours) "don't believe the propaganda" and thinks there's a good chance it was a false flag operation.
One theory, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/world/middleeast/syria-bashar-al-assad-russia-sarin-attack.html
Because for the past 8 years he has grown used to bluster and red lines drawn by the US and nothing ever happening. Thankfully, it appears those days are over. When I first heard about the strike I was not happy that we were meddling in the ME again, what with Graham and McCain going off on how we have to take out the Syrian Air Force. Once I started hear the details though, I agree with the US response 100%. Syria is fucked up, the only good guys there are the ones not fighting. We should not help either side, however I do agree we need to help the poor folks stuck in the middle, because they really only have two choices: Become refugees or join up with the Jihadist, neither of which is in ours or theirs best interest.
Ron Paul has, I haven't seen Rand Paul saying that. I could be mistaken though. Rand Paul says that the President needs Congressional authority for a military strike, and that isn't factually correct.
Don't bring facts into this conversation, kidding. Assad naturally doesn't want ISIS in his territory, who would want a revolutionary army insistent on forming their own state in their area. I have heard from reliable people Turkey is supporting ISIS, maybe as a way to turn the screws on Assad I also heard one of the key owners of Fox News is a Saudi, and another Prince owns a key stake in NBC.
So we should just sit idly by while innocent civilians are gassed by their own government? Is that what you're saying?
Doesn't it make sense that they would? Aren't they trying to prevent Al Qaeda from having Syrian influence? I'm not arguing, I'm actually just asking.
I think you're putting words in his mouth. The Middle East is a clusterfuck with actors from major nations everywhere in the area playing their own game. Iran, Saudi, Arabia, UAE, US, Russia, are all in this game, and of course we can't forget Turkey and likely other European nations. Somehow I forgot Israel is undoubtedly doing something up in there. Syria is a drunk frat party with a bunch of bros trying to show off who has the biggest cock. Yes, the humanitarian aspect is important, but I think in many ways Syria is a proxy battle for the Middle East much like Vietnam was a proxy battle between the US and Russia.
At the very least Trump should follow his own advice and seek congressional approval. And I think the time has long past for the American people to believe what the government and media propagandists say without seeing the evidence for themselves. The Russian and Syrian stories that it was a conventional airstrike that blew up a rebel chemical stockpile make sense. They make more sense than the idea that Assad bombed his own people with chemical weapons on the eve of victory virtually guaranteeing US intervention.
I realize that, but he seemed to be implying that since ISIS supports the attack, it was the wrong thing to do. The wrong thing would've been to issue another diplomatic condemnation and do nothing, or do as McCain and Graham lobbied for...an all out attack on the Syrian AF. This was a measured response designed to inflict as few casualties as possible and send a strong message that we will not tolerate war crimes against innocent civilians. It was not meant to cripple/topple Assad's regime. If it helped ISIS, it was of very minimal help. Assad still has his full military capabilities, just one less air field to conduct operations from.
When the idea of bringing refugees in from Syria came up everyone in the US, including Trump said it was a bad idea. Not accepting refugees is sitting idly by and letting innocent civilians get gassed!