[QUOTE=BeepKillBeep]
Also, I’m withdrawing my claim that the USA would be hurt more. I did some research into critical import/exports to find some data to respond to HurricaneDitka and I’m mistaken on that. I was under the mistaken impression that the USA imported a lot more critical material than they do.
[/QUOTE]
The image that should come to mind in something like that would be the US holding a cannon to every other countries head and them holding smaller pistols to ours. If everyone pulls the trigger then who hurts who worse is probably going to be moot. All I wanted to make clear is that the US is a vital piece in world trade and the world economy…if we go down, so does everyone else. The same can be said for other nations too, to a certain extent…China, Germany, the UK, South Korea, Japan, just to name a few. If any of them were to go down completely it would be a very bad day for the world.
I don’t think most American’s are unaware that we are part of the world. I doubt most Americans give much thought about countries outside of the US, but I also don’t think that’s some uniquely American thing either.
The thing is, as an individual you can and should vote with your pocketbook. If you are angry at the US and want to personally boycott our products and services, or even selectively do so, then that’s your right and you should do that. And in the aggregate, if enough other people in Canada and other nations do so, it will certainly be felt. That’s all fine and good. But, for Canada, as a nation state to even contemplate something like that, they have to be very careful (this goes both ways, as I expect Trump et al to find out if they push Mexico too far). That’s all I was getting at.
It was more than a pyrrhic victory. It was good. Full stop. It reinforced the long-standing international norm against the use of chemical weapons in a carefully-calculated way that avoided a larger war with Russia. While You’re right that Trump has had relatively few victories and moments worth celebrating thus far, we ought to be able to agree that this was one: a real victory, not a pyrrhic one. A win, not just of Republicans over Democrats, but of Western values over a particularly-reprehensible form of savagery.
ETA: I consider even small steps back down from the heights of rhetorical excess this place has reached since the election to be a good thing, so I’ll consider it a win, not one of me over you, but one for the SDMB as a place of reasoned discourse.
While I wish Obama hadn’t made the red-line statement (a foolish bluff), I think bombing Syria was and remains a big mistake, and generally weakens the US, further inflames the region and adds to the chaos, and increases the risk of greater dangers in the future. So I think this particular decision of Trump’s was bad, full stop. Very bad.
You think that countries or leaders should be able to use chemical and biological weapons on their own citizens and that the world should do nothing about it?? If you feel that way, should we basically just get rid of treaties that forbid it’s use, or just have treaties that everyone knows they can ignore without consequence even to using WMD on their own people?
The funny thing is I’ve always loved the US. I used to have the utmost respect for the US. I even lived and worked in the US for a few years. But that has just been chipped away at over the past few decades. This culminated not in the election of Trump, I was shocked by it, but I kind of understood it. What I don’t understand is the continued support for Trump. How can his approval rating not be 0%?
So, the way Trump treats the world/Canada feels very personal to me. The USA was a friend and ally, and now it has elected its worst to represent it. It actually hurts and so yes it makes me angry that a friend and ally has been taken over by this ignorant, arrogant buffoon. I see in him the worst of America and when I see America represented by Trump, it is hard, even knowing that all Americans aren’t like Trump, to feel that “This is America” and I don’t like him, so I don’t like America. This is why America’s prestige will go down in the world. It is really difficult to separate the Trump from being America.
And I don’t want to boycott American products/services to hurt the USA as much as I don’t want any dollars to go into the US economy to give Trump something to crow about. Ultimately, I want to hurt Trump (not physically leave me alone Secret Service) because he’s completely repugnant to me. I would say almost literally the opposite of everything that I believe in.
Are you talking about the broader bombing campaign (largely directed against ISIS) that has been going on since 2014 or the missile strikes against Shayrat Airbase on April 7th?
[QUOTE=BeepKillBeep]
What I don’t understand is the continued support for Trump. How can his approval rating not be 0%?
[/QUOTE]
Not to take this into Godwin territory, but the answer to this is that even Hitler (or Stalin…hell, even Mao and Pol Pot) had folks who believed in them and approved of what they were doing. Trump’s approval rating is the absolute worst in the history of the country for when he’s at in his presidency, but it’s never going to be 0%, since regardless of how wrong or bad someone is, there will always be those who believe and approve of what they are doing. My take away from all of this is that, historically, presidents with less than 50% approval ratings usually have the opposing party win seats in the mid-term…so, I expect the Dems to do a lot better in 2018 than they have in the last few elections. I also expect that The Donald will be a one term wonder, unless the Dems totally lose it and nominate someone worse.
I’m not a big fan of Trump, as you might have gleaned, but this situation will eventually resolve itself. My hope is that the Dems have learned their lesson here since I blame them more than I blame the Republicans for this fiasco…if the number of people who voted for Obama or even the number who voted for Romney AGAINST Obama had voted for Clinton, we wouldn’t be in this mess. Instead, a lot of Dems (and, to be fair, independents too…idiots) took their marbles and stayed at home. As Obama said…elections matter. I would think that after Gore this would have sunk in, but I’m hoping this is a ‘fooled me once, shame on you, fooled me twice, I’m an idiot…and I’ll never be fooled a 3rd time, damn it!’ situation.
I think this particular instance was a big mistake and makes the situation worse. I also oppose the use of bio/chem weapons, but that doesn’t mean every proposed bombing in response is a good idea.
I think they’re both mistakes. Obama was much too involved, militarily, in the middle east for my liking – any US-lead large-scale military strikes will be far more likely to make things worse in this uncontrollable, unpredictable region, than better, IMO – even if he was significantly less involved than his political opponents would have liked.
As long as we’re (the US in particular and the West in general) significantly enmeshed, the region won’t (and perhaps can’t) change into a non-chaotic and mostly functional one. I think such change can only come from within, and only when outside powers are mostly disengaged from the region.
[QUOTE=iiandyiiii]
I think this particular instance was a big mistake and makes the situation worse. I also oppose the use of bio/chem weapons, but that doesn’t mean every proposed bombing in response is a good idea.
[/QUOTE]
So…you oppose countries using it, but it’s more a symbolic opposition? I’m not trying to be flip here, but if you oppose the use but oppose retaliatory strikes then what does ‘oppose’ actually mean to you?
I think symbolic strikes – the “we must do something to show our displeasure!” strikes – are always, or almost always, a bad idea, and make the situation worse (in addition to pointlessly killing lots of people). In the rare case that we know exactly where the WMD caches are, and can destroy them completely with little or no collateral damage, then I might support them. I think this one clearly fell into the first category.
EDIT: This is probably a hijack, but I’d be happy to discuss this topic in other threads (and I have discussed it before in other threads).
I know you said “both”, but then you spent the rest of your post venting about the Obama-initiated larger bombing campaign against ISIS. Are you sure you really still think:
The WMD caches are in some of the most heavily protected areas. To get to them would entail a lot more potential death, both civilian and military. They are also in areas where there is a much greater Russian presence, which means getting to them would almost certainly bring the Russians in as well. Assuming you agree, you still think that doing something like that would be better than a strike that puts Syria on notice that future attacks will mean future US strikes?
If that is what you think, then while I disagree that would have been the best solution, I can certainly understand and agree it would have been effective. But the potential for escalation would have been, IMHO, unacceptable, unless the US wanted all out war with Syria and, possibly, Russia as well.
ETA: Yeah, I agree with the hijack part and I’ll stop at this point. Now, back to your regularly scheduled thread on the PA…
Here’s what I said – “In the rare case that we know exactly where the WMD caches are, and can destroy them completely with little or no collateral damage, then I might support them.”
What you describe doesn’t sound remotely close to that scenario.
Paris Accords and general climate type stuff - that’s what the thread is about.
Syria, bombing, and chemical weapon response - not what the thread is about. Please take discussion of those types of items to a different thread and cease the hijack.
If you feel that way, should we basically just get rid of treaties that forbid it’s use, or just have treaties that everyone knows they can ignore without consequence even to using WMD on their own people?