I can see why this forum keeps getting shut down. Anyone who thinks that we shouldn't have taken action after the recent chemical attack is lying to themselves. Honestly, I doubt anyone on here really believes that we shouldn't have taken action, yet lets still try and turn it into a political move just for the hell of it.

 

After the attacks in 2013 they were supposed to give up the chemical weapons and Obama and his crew said that they did. Now in 2017 Assad uses chemical weapons once again. If this had happened at this time last year, I believe that even Obama would have taken similar action as Trump. But since Trump did, it's a political move? That's a joke, right?

 

You've yet to address the theories I've posed. You also ignored the part where I didn't criticize the move.

 

You want to debate what I actually posted or do you just want to take offense? I vote the former.

 

Do you believe the POTUS wasn't aware of previous gassing killing tens of thousands of children ?

You've yet to address the theories I've posed. You also ignored the part where I didn't criticize the move.

 

You want to debate what I actually posted or do you just want to take offense? I vote the former.

 

Do you believe the POTUS wasn't aware of previous gassing killing tens of thousands of children ?

 

I addressed that in posts 232 and 235.. You responded to 232, but not 235.

 

Serious question though.. Do you think we should have bombed them Thursday night or not?

I addressed that in posts 232 and 235.. You responded to 232, but not 235.

 

My response is the same. He changed his mind because of pictures. I'll ask again. Do you believe those pictures were the first he knew of children deaths?

My response is the same. He changed his mind because of pictures. I'll ask again. Do you believe those pictures were the first he knew of children deaths?

 

No I don't, but the previous gas attacks came prior to him becoming President. Hard to expect him to come right in and act on it until something happens during his tenure.

 

Again, do you believe that we should have bombed them Thursday or just left it alone?

No I don't, but the previous gas attacks came prior to him becoming President. Hard to expect him to come right in and act on it until something happens during his tenure.

 

Again, do you believe that we should have bombed them Thursday or just left it alone?

 

So you believe he knew thousands of kids were killed by Assad over the years yet he still said less than a year ago that we shouldn't go into Syria? So what changed? Pictures? That's a bit concerning to me. It's also concerning to me that his aids instructed the security team to show him pictures instead of a bunch of text when describing the gas attacks. Do we want decisions being made from pictures? Remember, he said that he changed his mind after he saw the pictures (I'm not misquting him).

 

So either a)he's lying about the reasons (my contention ) or b)he knew about the years of atrocities, made several statements about staying out yet changed his mind ONLY after asking to see pictures. That's just too odd.

 

I've already answered your question. Did so in the very post that got you wound up.

 

I am not smart enough to say if it was good or bad. I don't know the plan. I don't know the impact of it. I don't know how other countries will react. I don't know if it was effective.

 

I'll defer to the resident geopolitical experts on here for that one. Might have been perfect. Might have been lacking proper thought. Don't know.

So you believe he knew thousands of kids were killed by Assad over the years yet he still said less than a year ago that we shouldn't go into Syria? So what changed? Pictures? That's a bit concerning to me. It's also concerning to me that his aids instructed the security team to show him pictures instead of a bunch of text when describing the gas attacks. Do we want decisions being made from pictures? Remember, he said that he changed his mind after he saw the pictures (I'm not misquting him).

 

So either a)he's lying about the reasons (my contention ) or b)he knew about the years of atrocities, made several statements about staying out yet changed his mind ONLY after asking to see pictures. That's just too odd.

 

I've already answered your question. Did so in the very post that got you wound up.

 

I am not smart enough to say if it was good or bad. I don't know the plan. I don't know the impact of it. I don't know how other countries will react. I don't know if it was effective.

 

I'll defer to the resident geopolitical experts on here for that one. Might have been perfect. Might have been lacking proper thought. Don't know.

 

We didn't go into Syria.. We bombed an air force base from the sea.

 

Abstaining isn't exactly an answer, which is why I can't figure out why your reaching so high to try and believe that it was a political move.

 

That said, political or not, it needed to be done in most peoples opinions. I don't believe it was a political move, but whatever.

So you believe he knew thousands of kids were killed by Assad over the years yet he still said less than a year ago that we shouldn't go into Syria? So what changed? Pictures? That's a bit concerning to me. It's also concerning to me that his aids instructed the security team to show him pictures instead of a bunch of text when describing the gas attacks. Do we want decisions being made from pictures? Remember, he said that he changed his mind after he saw the pictures (I'm not misquting him).

 

So either a)he's lying about the reasons (my contention ) or b)he knew about the years of atrocities, made several statements about staying out yet changed his mind ONLY after asking to see pictures. That's just too odd.

 

I've already answered your question. Did so in the very post that got you wound up.

 

I am not smart enough to say if it was good or bad. I don't know the plan. I don't know the impact of it. I don't know how other countries will react. I don't know if it was effective.

 

I'll defer to the resident geopolitical experts on here for that one. Might have been perfect. Might have been lacking proper thought. Don't know.

 

You are looking for a reason to question the attack. What other reason could there be to twist it into a political move?

 

Maybe putting a face on the atrocity, along with all the intel he was getting helped humanize it. Not just numbers and figures.

Just because it was the right thing to do to bomb an empty, tipped off airbase that was operational again within 48 hours and cost taxpayers 83 million dollars for the 59 missiles that destroyed 20 airplanes that weren't operational doesn't mean that this wasn't a political move by Trump.

We didn't go into Syria.. We bombed an air force base from the sea.

 

Abstaining isn't exactly an answer, which is why I can't figure out why your reaching so high to try and believe that it was a political move.

 

That said, political or not, it needed to be done in most peoples opinions. I don't believe it was a political move, but whatever.

 

If I don't abstain them I'm just pulling an answer out of my rear end. I just don't think it's as simple an answer as you and maybe others do. It's not an either/or for me. It can be the right military move AND be political as I contend it is.

It seems no matter what President Trump does, there will be those that will never give him credit. Sad.

 

When he fires Bannon I'll give him plenty of credit. When he does something I wholeheartedly agree with then I'll give him plenty of credit. As of today, 4/9/17, he hasn't done a single thing I agree with. He can't even bomb Syria correctly. He's not getting credit for that from me. He'll get credit from me when he shows real strength and wipes them off the map and points our guns at Russia. Until then he's just as weak as Obama was.

When he fires Bannon I'll give him plenty of credit. When he does something I wholeheartedly agree with then I'll give him plenty of credit. As of today, 4/9/17, he hasn't done a single thing I agree with. He can't even bomb Syria correctly. He's not getting credit for that from me. He'll get credit from me when he shows real strength and wipes them off the map and points our guns at Russia. Until then he's just as weak as Obama was.

 

I gave him credit when he donated his salary to the Park Service.

 

So far, that's been about all I can think of.

I gave him credit when he donated his salary to the Park Service.

 

So far, that's been about all I can think of.

 

Oh yeah, I did give him credit for that also. I stand corrected. Thanks, pops!! :thumb:

I gave him credit when he donated his salary to the Park Service.

 

So far, that's been about all I can think of.

 

Oh yeah, I did give him credit for that also. I stand corrected. Thanks, pops!! :thumb:

 

I didn't. His budget will cut the dept of the interior and national parks service 1.5 billion. Hell of a trade $ 79,000. :no:

 

I digress... the more this goes on the more this sounds like a "wag the dog" stunt. I'll have to admit the more I read our BGPers the more I think it is. :lol2:

I didn't. His budget will cut the dept of the interior and national parks service 1.5 billion. Hell of a trade $ 79,000. :no:

 

I digress... the more this goes on the more this sounds like a "wag the dog" stunt. I'll have to admit the more I read out BGPers the more I think it is. :lol2:

 

Yeah, I actually just read an article that makes this point so I am officially rescinding the credit I gave him and will continue to wait and see if he can earn my credit.

Yeah, I actually just read an article that makes this point so I am officially rescinding the credit I gave him and will continue to wait and see if he can earn my credit.

 

Well the president is a double agent working for Russia and is complicit in the chemical attacks so don't expect to much.