They're not waiting until he gets into office:
NYT Gives Critic Front to Mourn Aleppo: Obama Not Blamed, Trump Is?
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb...e-critic-a1-space-mourn-inaction-aleppo-obama
Genocide in Syria
- Thread starter CaptainObvious
- Start date
NYT Gives Critic Front to Mourn Aleppo: Obama Not Blamed, Trump Is?
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb...e-critic-a1-space-mourn-inaction-aleppo-obama
Drudge linked to tweets from hollywood types today. Some seemed to be blaming Trump or at least bringing him into the picture.
Its really unfathomable and deceitful.
The should be putting this on hillary and barrack incompetence. or no ones perhaps. But this is not trump's fault.
Why have then not been putting pressure on Obama.
Its really unfathomable and deceitful.
The should be putting this on hillary and barrack incompetence. or no ones perhaps. But this is not trump's fault.
Why have then not been putting pressure on Obama.
When I was putting out here the plight of Syrian refugees, and other refugees, I was kind of ....
May I ask : what has changed for your lot to suddenly feel something for the plight of the Syrians?
It's not as if, none of you knew what was happening to them for the last 5 years.
May I ask : what has changed for your lot to suddenly feel something for the plight of the Syrians?
It's not as if, none of you knew what was happening to them for the last 5 years.
Absolutely nothing. That's not the point, but you already knew that. The point being, why is the media, the same media who has give Obama a pass on this massacre for five years, why are they now so interested? This little gift is about to be on Trumps watch, so now it's a big deal?
The media are going to try to blame the Russians for all the suffering. How about putting the blame where it belongs? On Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Obama for arming and funding the insurrection. And on the terrorists for using the civilian population as human shields.
.
.
Let me ask everyone on this thread....
What is your solution for the issue of Syria? How do you stop all the civilian deaths and refugee problem? Is this something that the U.S. does alone? Or is it with a coalition of partners? How do you stop other countries from arming parties the U.S. does not support?
Step forward with your solution to the Syrian crisis...
Let's hear it.
What is your solution for the issue of Syria? How do you stop all the civilian deaths and refugee problem? Is this something that the U.S. does alone? Or is it with a coalition of partners? How do you stop other countries from arming parties the U.S. does not support?
Step forward with your solution to the Syrian crisis...
Let's hear it.
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/patrick-j-buchanan/lessons-aleppo-trump
"Lessons of Aleppo – for Trump"
"...But the blunder was not in staying out of Syria's civil war, but in going in. Aleppo is a bloodbath born of interventionism.
On Aug. 18, 2011, President Obama said, "For the sake of the Syrian people the time has come for President Assad to step aside." Western leaders echoed the Obama — "Assad must go!"
Assad, however, declined to go, and crushed an Arab Spring uprising of the kind that had ousted Hosni Mubarak in Cairo. When the U.S. began to fund and train rebels to overthrow him, Assad rallied his troops and began bringing in allies — Hezbollah, Iran and Russia.
It was with their indispensable assistance that he recaptured Aleppo in the decisive battle of the war. And now America has lost credibility all over the Arab and Muslim world.
How did this debacle come about?
First, in calling for the overthrow of Bashar Assad, who had not attacked or threatened us, we acted not in our national interests, but out of democratist ideology. Assad is a dictator. Dictators are bad. So Assad must go.
Yet we had no idea who would replace him.
It soon became clear that Assad's most formidable enemies, and probable successors, would be the al-Nusra Front, the Syrian branch of al-Qaida, or ISIS, then carrying out grisly executions in their base camp in Raqqa.
U.S. policy became to back the "good" rebels in Aleppo, bomb the "bad" rebels in Raqqa and demand that Assad depart. An absurd policy.
Nor had the American people been consulted.
After a decade of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they saw no U.S. vital interests at risk in who ruled Damascus, so long as it was not the terrorists of ISIS or al-Qaida.
..."
"...
Then came Obama's "red line" warning: The U.S. would take military action if chemical weapons were used in Syria's civil war.
What undercut this ultimatum was that Congress had never authorized the president to take military action against Syria, and the American people wanted to stay out of Syria's civil war.
When Assad allegedly used chemical weapons and Obama threatened air strikes, the nation rose as one to demand that Congress keep us out of the war. Secretary of State John Kerry was reduced to assuring us that any U.S. strike would be "unbelievably small."
By 2015, as Assad army's seemed to be breaking, Vladimir Putin boldly stepped in with air power, alongside Hezbollah and Iran. Why? Because all have vital interests in preserving the Assad regime.
Bashar Assad is Russia's ally and provides Putin with his sole naval base in the Med. Assad's regime is the source of Hezbollah's resupply and weapons to deter, and, if necessary, fight Israel.
To Iran, Assad is an ally against Saudi Arabia and the Sunni awakening and a crucial link in the Shiite Crescent that extends from Tehran to Baghdad to Damascus to Beirut.
All have greater stakes in this civil war than do we, and have been willing to invest more time, blood and treasure. Thus they have, so far, prevailed..."
"...
The lessons for Trump from the Aleppo disaster?
Do not even consider getting into a new Middle East war — unless Congress votes to authorize it, the American people are united behind it, vital U.S. interests are clearly imperiled, and we know how the war ends and when we can come home.
For wars have a habit of destroying presidencies.
Korea broke Truman. Vietnam broke Lyndon Johnson. Iraq broke the Republican Congress in 2006 and gave us Obama in 2008.
And the Iran war now being talked up in the think tanks and on the op-ed pages would be the end of the Trump presidency.
Before starting such a war, Donald Trump might call in Bob Gates and ask him what he meant at West Point in February 2011 when he told the cadets:
"Any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should 'have his head examined,' as General MacArthur so delicately put it."
"Lessons of Aleppo – for Trump"
"...But the blunder was not in staying out of Syria's civil war, but in going in. Aleppo is a bloodbath born of interventionism.
On Aug. 18, 2011, President Obama said, "For the sake of the Syrian people the time has come for President Assad to step aside." Western leaders echoed the Obama — "Assad must go!"
Assad, however, declined to go, and crushed an Arab Spring uprising of the kind that had ousted Hosni Mubarak in Cairo. When the U.S. began to fund and train rebels to overthrow him, Assad rallied his troops and began bringing in allies — Hezbollah, Iran and Russia.
It was with their indispensable assistance that he recaptured Aleppo in the decisive battle of the war. And now America has lost credibility all over the Arab and Muslim world.
How did this debacle come about?
First, in calling for the overthrow of Bashar Assad, who had not attacked or threatened us, we acted not in our national interests, but out of democratist ideology. Assad is a dictator. Dictators are bad. So Assad must go.
Yet we had no idea who would replace him.
It soon became clear that Assad's most formidable enemies, and probable successors, would be the al-Nusra Front, the Syrian branch of al-Qaida, or ISIS, then carrying out grisly executions in their base camp in Raqqa.
U.S. policy became to back the "good" rebels in Aleppo, bomb the "bad" rebels in Raqqa and demand that Assad depart. An absurd policy.
Nor had the American people been consulted.
After a decade of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they saw no U.S. vital interests at risk in who ruled Damascus, so long as it was not the terrorists of ISIS or al-Qaida.
..."
"...
Then came Obama's "red line" warning: The U.S. would take military action if chemical weapons were used in Syria's civil war.
What undercut this ultimatum was that Congress had never authorized the president to take military action against Syria, and the American people wanted to stay out of Syria's civil war.
When Assad allegedly used chemical weapons and Obama threatened air strikes, the nation rose as one to demand that Congress keep us out of the war. Secretary of State John Kerry was reduced to assuring us that any U.S. strike would be "unbelievably small."
By 2015, as Assad army's seemed to be breaking, Vladimir Putin boldly stepped in with air power, alongside Hezbollah and Iran. Why? Because all have vital interests in preserving the Assad regime.
Bashar Assad is Russia's ally and provides Putin with his sole naval base in the Med. Assad's regime is the source of Hezbollah's resupply and weapons to deter, and, if necessary, fight Israel.
To Iran, Assad is an ally against Saudi Arabia and the Sunni awakening and a crucial link in the Shiite Crescent that extends from Tehran to Baghdad to Damascus to Beirut.
All have greater stakes in this civil war than do we, and have been willing to invest more time, blood and treasure. Thus they have, so far, prevailed..."
"...
The lessons for Trump from the Aleppo disaster?
Do not even consider getting into a new Middle East war — unless Congress votes to authorize it, the American people are united behind it, vital U.S. interests are clearly imperiled, and we know how the war ends and when we can come home.
For wars have a habit of destroying presidencies.
Korea broke Truman. Vietnam broke Lyndon Johnson. Iraq broke the Republican Congress in 2006 and gave us Obama in 2008.
And the Iran war now being talked up in the think tanks and on the op-ed pages would be the end of the Trump presidency.
Before starting such a war, Donald Trump might call in Bob Gates and ask him what he meant at West Point in February 2011 when he told the cadets:
"Any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should 'have his head examined,' as General MacArthur so delicately put it."
Just watched the 60 minutes segment on Syria. Some of the most graphic footage I've ever seen on regular network television. Very heart wrenching. Confirms the media is now in a full court press to highlight the horror. Trump is going to have his hands full with an angry media ready to pull out all the stops to make life as miserable as possible for him and the entire nation.
Last edited:
This will be over soon. This is the kind of dirty work we pretty much have to let the Russians handle, and I think Trump understands that. Our military would go in with rules of engagement that would guarantee a lot of our soldiers would get killed and we wouldn't be able to do the job, just like in Afghanistan. The Russians actually try to minimize their own casualties and inflict crippling losses on the enemy. Unlike us, they don't have to get targets approved by a platoon of lawyers, nor do they invite the international media in to second guess them.
Trump supporters who are so giddy about all the generals he is appointing should reflect that they are the same geniuses who reduced our military to this state of affairs.