Sean L requested a “hot take” on PDT’s decision to launch missile strikes against military targets in Syria. I think I have, like, four.
1. Well, so much for the idea that Trump is a prawn of Vladimir Putin; what with the bombing and calling for the ouster of Putin’s buddy Assad. And on that topic…
2. When has removing a strongman in the Middle East ever made anything better? You would think we had learned what happened after toppling Saddam, Qadaffi, the Shah…
3. BTW, what is it about going to war in the Middle East that US presidents just can’t resist? The last five presidents have all launched or continued military adventures in the Middle East. Maybe it was important when our European allies needed the oil. But we can pretty much fulfill our oil requirements from other sources. If France and Germany want to go to war in the Middle East so *they* can has oil, then let them do it. Oh, right, they can’t. Honestly, the Middle East is a snake pit. If we were smart, we’d quarantine the entire region and let them work out their differences while we watched from the sidelines.
4. The left should have to contort themselves like a Cirque du SoGay acrobat to explain why missile strikes were brilliant foreign policy when Hillary suggested them, but Trump is a warmongering buffoon for carrying them out. I think the explanation will be along the lines of, “Shut up, racist.”
Anyway, Sean L might find Scott Adams take more interesting than mine. He wonders if Assad was really the one behind the gas attacks. He makes some interesting points.
There are no good options for Syria. When England, France, and Obama decided to topple Qaddafi, I leaned against it, but I gave Obama the leeway since he is commander-in-chief. It turns out to be a mistake. We need to eliminate ISIS, but otherwise, stay out of Mideast wars. The Mohammedans loathe us, so anything we do for them will not be reciprocated in a positive way.
McCain and Schumer were behind this.
Scott Adams articulated my views, but I will add that people and conspiracies are never exactly as script writers write and edit and rewrite them.
One could make a case for the “Wag the Dog” scenario in which Trump up and simultaneously sent shots across the bows of North Korea, China, NATO, Putin, Turkey, Iran, the burgeoning Arab coalition, the Senate and House Trump loves Russia committees, McCain-Graham, the Bannon hit squad, the media and Starbucks. (Starbucks being the social justice loons.)
I can not quite imagine how the talks today with the Chi-Com Goliath will have been affected by the reality of what went down during the happy talk dinner last evening. Chi-Com was far from snubbed, as Obama did dismissively with Netanyahu. He was immediately informed, but he was not asked.
The Trumpsters are not a monolith, so I expect some few to feel “betrayed” and bray about it. I suspect most will accept Trump’s decision as quick and bold and not capricious. But that is just a guess. I would lard that guess by adding that Trump will win far more supporters than he may lose in the disillusioned acolyte abandonment.
Paraphrasing Mrs. Palin : “Leave the area and let Allah sort it out”
**Truck crashes into Stockholm store, prime minister calls it ‘a terrorist attack’**
Anyone else see how this headline is wrong?
Heh-heh. If this was a typo, then it was a fortuitous one. (The prawn/shrimp is kinda like the LOLCAT of Russian Internet humor.)