Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 thekingofkings wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
If Trump gets impeached I can't see any way possible Pence remains a viable candidate. I think he's irrevocably tainted by association.

Was Gore tainted from Clinton's impeachment? I don't really recall...

Well, he lost, so....

Doesn't really answer my question...

I'm generally curious... He lost Florida by 537 votes.

Had Clinton never been impeached, I wonder if we would have a Gore Presidency...

Very likely. Despite the Florida votes, consider the effect in other states. Had Clinton not been a factor, Gore may have won enough of the others to make it a moot point. While I have a general dislike for Democrats and an absolute loathing of liberals/progressives, I voted for Gore. I would have voted for Biden or Webb had they been put forward, even over my own candidate (Johnson)

Back when Gore and Bush were running I was still basically an independent. I went by what the person stated their plans were, and if it jived with what my life was doing at the time. I was always environmentally conscious, and was also one of those natural conservation types. Well, I swallowed the Global Warming (TM) thi... Sorry, climate change thing back then as well. What swung me to vote for Bush was their plans to address the tax overcollection. Was anyone besides me a working taxpayer back then? Anyway, through some... event the IRS had collected more tax revenue than it was supposed to. This was brought up in the Presidential debates as far as what the candidates intended to do about it. Gore's solution was to spend it, since the government had already collected it, using it to fund programs that may be a bit tight, possibly The key was that he wanted to spend the "surplus" for lack of a better term. Bush's solution to that was to pay it back, as he viewed it as dishonest to keep it. Well, post election and Bush winning, even though I voted for him because of the idea that integrity seemed to matter to him, I constantly joked with family and friends about how skeptical I was that Bush would cut checks for everyone. I did, that is, until my reimbursement check came in the mail. That's why I sat down and really had a go at what my political viewpoints and beliefs were, and that was the moment I drew a hard line in the sand.





Onto another subject that was quietly breezed past. I have personally worked with immigrants who joined the military as a path to citizenship. I have nothing but respect for them. My comment that I want to make, however, deals with Selective Service. Since women are now integrated into combat arms, I feel they should ALSO have to sign up for the draft. Equality. I also think the US could do with mandatory military service, much like several European countries do. Drum out the ones that need drummed out, mind you. But everyone else should serve at least two years in the Reserves or Guard, with the option to spend that time active. I'd also love it if there were resources to attain a degree in that time. Public sector college professors/instructors. I'd be down. It'd also work wonders with our current discipline/authority respect issues in this country.

 sebster wrote:
And how is he going to go back to his old grifts anyway? Return to minority and start producing his imaginary budgets again, with the promise that next time when he's in power he'll actually try to do the budget balancing and tax reform he promised?

The con was finished.

Well, the important part is the guy that wanted to substantially raise the retirement age is himself retiring at 48 with a full pension and lifetime benefits and healthcare.

 whembly wrote:
The MO state congressional committee just released their report on Grietin allegation, and whoa momma that's some hella testimony.

If true, he's a sexual predator that need to be thrown in jail.

You know how we had a recent discussion, because you posted some news driven by press statements by Greitin's lawyers and said it was a big deal that showed massive prosecutorial over-reach? I reacted with more than a little contempt, and explained that the victim volunteering one small part of her story might not be reliable doesn't throw in to doubt her statements about the actual crimes she's accused him of.

And now we've had a proper release of the testimony, and a state congressional review of 5 Republicans and 2 Democrats stating she was a credible witness?

I mean, at some point you're going to have to stop getting led by the nose on this stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Tony wrote:
Back when Gore and Bush were running I was still basically an independent. I went by what the person stated their plans were, and if it jived with what my life was doing at the time. I was always environmentally conscious, and was also one of those natural conservation types. Well, I swallowed the Global Warming (TM) thi... Sorry, climate change thing back then as well. What swung me to vote for Bush was their plans to address the tax overcollection. Was anyone besides me a working taxpayer back then? Anyway, through some... event the IRS had collected more tax revenue than it was supposed to. This was brought up in the Presidential debates as far as what the candidates intended to do about it. Gore's solution was to spend it, since the government had already collected it, using it to fund programs that may be a bit tight, possibly The key was that he wanted to spend the "surplus" for lack of a better term. Bush's solution to that was to pay it back, as he viewed it as dishonest to keep it. Well, post election and Bush winning, even though I voted for him because of the idea that integrity seemed to matter to him, I constantly joked with family and friends about how skeptical I was that Bush would cut checks for everyone. I did, that is, until my reimbursement check came in the mail. That's why I sat down and really had a go at what my political viewpoints and beliefs were, and that was the moment I drew a hard line in the sand.

Tax over-collection? I think you've gotten a bit confused. Tax over-collection is when a rule is misapplied or something similar resulting in tax agents collecting more money than they should. There is no debate about what to do with this money, it must be returned to the individual people who paid it because government would be in possession of money it had no legal to take.

The actual debate was over the federal surplus, for the first time in a long time the US was collecting more than it needed. Gore's position was to continue to pay down the existing debt, expand some government programs, but most of all Gore said the current surpluses shouldn't be taken as free money, because the economy will dip again, and of course there was the impending baby boomer retirements that would add new pressures on the budget. Bush's position was that government should cut taxes, and stop collecting more than it needed. Thing is, after Bush won the election he followed through and cut taxes, twice. But Bush also massively ramped up spending, presiding over the largest expansion in federal spending since Johnson. But he no longer had those tax revenues to pay for it, it was all deficit.

So yeah, Bush cut you a check. He did it with borrowed money, and then on top of that he borrowed more money to massively expand the government. But you got your check, I guess.


The other thing you touch on - climate change, yeah well. It's interesting you used to respect the scientific consensus but now you've dropped that, at the same time you happened to fall in to Republican politics on so many other issues. That's quite telling, I think, and probably quite a common story among a lot of people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
Well, the important part is the guy that wanted to substantially raise the retirement age is himself retiring at 48 with a full pension and lifetime benefits and healthcare.

His one regret was that he couldn't take healthcare away from more people.

*sigh*

Climate change did not replace global warming, it is caused by global warming. Climate change is the name for the change in the climate caused by the average increase of temperatures across the board. And while we're on the topic; no, global warming did not replace the theory that the next ice age is coming either. It should start in one to two thousand years.

Why does this belong in US politics? Because the rest of the first world understands this while a minority in the US disagree for purely political reasons. If a person was told one piece of medical advice by a doctor and a politician said it wasn't true one would take the doctor's opinion. He's spent his life studying the topic and further, politicians have a reputation for less-than-honesty. But when the same thing happens in climatology republicans suddenly decide that the politician is a more reliable source.

At this point denying reality isn't a trend among republicans but a basic requirement.

 Just Tony wrote:
What swung me to vote for Bush was their plans to address the tax overcollection. Was anyone besides me a working taxpayer back then? Anyway, through some... event the IRS had collected more tax revenue than it was supposed to. This was brought up in the Presidential debates as far as what the candidates intended to do about it. Gore's solution was to spend it, since the government had already collected it, using it to fund programs that may be a bit tight, possibly The key was that he wanted to spend the "surplus" for lack of a better term. Bush's solution to that was to pay it back, as he viewed it as dishonest to keep it. Well, post election and Bush winning, even though I voted for him because of the idea that integrity seemed to matter to him, I constantly joked with family and friends about how skeptical I was that Bush would cut checks for everyone. I did, that is, until my reimbursement check came in the mail. That's why I sat down and really had a go at what my political viewpoints and beliefs were, and that was the moment I drew a hard line in the sand.

Sebster already covered most of this, but I want to highlight the sheer absurdity of this statement. In 2000 the US was in debt, and not by a trivial amount. Tax revenue exceeded spending that particular year, but the US was in the equivalent position to someone who got a nice raise at work and had money left at the end of each month but still had credit card bills and student loan debt and such. And here we have someone arguing that the federal government is obligated to pay back any tax revenue that exceeds that year's spending, creating a situation where the US can never pay off its debts. But it gets even worse, that the government is obligated to do so in the form of long-term commitments to those "refund" checks even though the surplus is almost certainly temporary, making that debt that they refuse to pay off even larger. And this is such an important issue that Just Tony switched parties because the democrats wouldn't adopt this insane financial plan.

This is why US politics is broken, a large part of the population puts commitment to ideological principles ahead of pragmatism and insists on policy decisions that do not work.

Onto another subject that was quietly breezed past. I have personally worked with immigrants who joined the military as a path to citizenship. I have nothing but respect for them. My comment that I want to make, however, deals with Selective Service. Since women are now integrated into combat arms, I feel they should ALSO have to sign up for the draft.

I suppose the fairness point is true in principle, but it's not an argument worth caring about. The draft does not exist anymore, it doesn't matter who is signed up for it because nobody will ever be drafted again. The only reform that is worth talking about is abolishing the whole thing and not wasting money on operating the signup system for the sole purpose of pretending that the draft still exists.

I also think the US could do with mandatory military service, much like several European countries do. Drum out the ones that need drummed out, mind you. But everyone else should serve at least two years in the Reserves or Guard, with the option to spend that time active. I'd also love it if there were resources to attain a degree in that time. Public sector college professors/instructors. I'd be down.

This would be utterly pointless. The US already has way more soldiers than it needs, the last thing the military wants is a bunch of conscripts who don't want to be there and have no purpose besides serving their mandatory years.

It'd also work wonders with our current discipline/authority respect issues in this country.

You can't possibly be serious.

Hey, it'd probably also put loads of businesses out of business as suddenly they're having to give their veterans discount to everybody.

That or they'd have to stop doing veterans discounts and face the backlash for not "supporting the troops"

 Just Tony wrote:
I constantly joked with family and friends about how skeptical I was that Bush would cut checks for everyone. I did, that is, until my reimbursement check came in the mail. That's why I sat down and really had a go at what my political viewpoints and beliefs were, and that was the moment I drew a hard line in the sand.
.

Removed - BrookM

 Henry wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
I constantly joked with family and friends about how skeptical I was that Bush would cut checks for everyone. I did, that is, until my reimbursement check came in the mail. That's why I sat down and really had a go at what my political viewpoints and beliefs were, and that was the moment I drew a hard line in the sand.
.

Removed - BrookM

THIS is the reason we get threads locked right here. I have no time to address things proper, so I will get back to logical tear downs once I'm off work.

Offending text removed - BrookM

I remember when Jesse ventura also won election in Minnesota on cutting checks. Once that was done, everyone and their uncle did everythign they could to undercut the guy, and then lo-and -behold the chief undercutter became the next Governor.

That is a lesson for what is about to happen on the National stage.

I think there are too many people here that will believe whatever they wish to believe in defiance of observable reality and it seems unlikely any serious or reasonable political discussion is going to take place in this environment. I assume that's why the last thread on this topic crashed and burned.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
I think there are too many people here that will believe whatever they wish to believe in defiance of observable reality and it seems unlikely any serious or reasonable political discussion is going to take place in this environment. I assume that's why the last thread on this topic crashed and burned.

Yes. The thread does an excellent job of mirroring US politics in that regard.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
I think there are too many people here that will believe whatever they wish to believe in defiance of observable reality and it seems unlikely any serious or reasonable political discussion is going to take place in this environment. I assume that's why the last thread on this topic crashed and burned.

Nobody who reads this post will think Albino Squirrel is talking about them.

 Elemental wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
I think there are too many people here that will believe whatever they wish to believe in defiance of observable reality and it seems unlikely any serious or reasonable political discussion is going to take place in this environment. I assume that's why the last thread on this topic crashed and burned.

Nobody who reads this post will think Albino Squirrel is talking about them.

Maybe I'm showing my age... but I don't understand that reference...

Is that a meme?

 whembly wrote:
Maybe I'm showing my age... but I don't understand that reference...

Is that a meme?

It's the name of the person quoted in that post...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
I think there are too many people here that will believe whatever they wish to believe in defiance of observable reality and it seems unlikely any serious or reasonable political discussion is going to take place in this environment. I assume that's why the last thread on this topic crashed and burned.

This is being rather unfair to the people who do have reasonable things to say and discuss politics constructively. There is nothing preventing us from having a constructive politics discussion, as long as the small minority of partisan trolls arguing in bad faith are not allowed to continue to participate.

 Elemental wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
I think there are too many people here that will believe whatever they wish to believe in defiance of observable reality and it seems unlikely any serious or reasonable political discussion is going to take place in this environment. I assume that's why the last thread on this topic crashed and burned.

Nobody who reads this post will think Albino Squirrel is talking about them.

You are right, of course. It's nearly impossible to self-diagnose such a thing.

 Elemental wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
I think there are too many people here that will believe whatever they wish to believe in defiance of observable reality and it seems unlikely any serious or reasonable political discussion is going to take place in this environment. I assume that's why the last thread on this topic crashed and burned.

Nobody who reads this post will think Albino Squirrel is talking about them.

Unless you are Robert Murray of Murray Energy

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Maybe I'm showing my age... but I don't understand that reference...

Is that a meme?

It's the name of the person quoted in that post...

Ha! It's not my age... but, my eyeball! Thanks.

 whembly wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Maybe I'm showing my age... but I don't understand that reference...

Is that a meme?

It's the name of the person quoted in that post...

Ha! It's not my age... but, my eyeball! Thanks.

Well, that could be age related too! Darn bi-focals!

Does everybody remember the Obama red lines on Syria, and the song and dance the GOP made when Obama didn't enforce his red lines?

Well, I think Trump just had his red line moment. We might attack, we might not attack, it might be soon, very soon, or very very very soon...

At the time, I was pretty scathing of Obama for not backing up an ultimatum. For the record, I am against military action in Syria

BUT

If a US President says they will conduct Military Operation X, they damn well better do it, because otherwise, it undercuts the POTUS's authority, damages US prestige, and frankly, it makes them look like a sack of gak.

It's amateur hour at the White House.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
I think there are too many people here that will believe whatever they wish to believe in defiance of observable reality and it seems unlikely any serious or reasonable political discussion is going to take place in this environment. I assume that's why the last thread on this topic crashed and burned.

That's why you need neutral observers like me to comment on US history and politics.

It may surprise dakka members, but when I did history at university a few years back, I did a few US history modules: 17th century America, and the cultural/social impact of the Vietnam war. Quite a jump, but that's how the timetable was back then.

In short, I am technically qualified to comment on the USA

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
If a US President says they will conduct Military Operation X, they damn well better do it, because otherwise, it undercuts the POTUS's authority, damages US prestige, and frankly, it makes them look like a sack of gak.

It's amateur hour at the White House.

I am perfectly happy with Trump being nothing but a hot air balloon on the issue of invading Syria because I like things that at least don't directly escalate the risk of nuclear war.

We're move waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too many assets to be just a bluff.

Maybe a bluff is a good thing if Russia/Syria backs down. But...eh...

 whembly wrote:
We're move waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too many assets to be just a bluff.

Maybe a bluff is a good thing if Russia/Syria backs down. But...eh...

Speak softly and carry a big stick, as one former POTUS once said.

Trump would have been better off saying nothing, moving the ships into place, and then have an aide or a press leak get the information out there.

That would have showed he meant business. Instead, he just ran his mouth off.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
If a US President says they will conduct Military Operation X, they damn well better do it, because otherwise, it undercuts the POTUS's authority, damages US prestige, and frankly, it makes them look like a sack of gak.

It's amateur hour at the White House.

I am perfectly happy with Trump being nothing but a hot air balloon on the issue of invading Syria because I like things that at least don't directly escalate the risk of nuclear war.

I don't want war either, but nobody cares what I say. They do, however, listen to the President of the United States. Whoever he may be...

You can quote me on this, but there'll be no nuclear war. Nobody is that daft.

A few cruise missiles will get lobbed into Syria, some camels and 1970s ex-Soviet tanks will get taken out, and that'll be the end of it.

And we'll be back here again next year discussing more possible action.

 whembly wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

KTG17 wrote:
Lets face it. The Republican party is a mess, and the democratic one is essentially leaderless. I am not even sure we can identify the Republican party anymore. I think its a twisted version of its former self.

I think both parties will become pretty fractured for awhile.

I think Democrats are far less fractured than Republicans. . . The issue will be whether the DNC listens to the grassroots base or not (not holding breath here). The way I see it, Democrats have 2 main factions: neoliberals and the oftentimes called "Justice democrats". The latter group being Democrats running without PAC money, pushing for a return to the day of legislating for the average "Joe the Plummer" type as opposed to legislating for the corporations.

I dunno... I think both parties are pretty fractured.

Don't forget the internecine war between the Bernie-wing and HRC-wing... the Bernie fan-clubs are not likely to forget and forgive.

Where as the GOP has that NeverTrumpers v. Trumpalos dynamic...

What you point out, the "Bernie bros v. HRC crowd" is basically a single big fracture. . . More voters are on the side of the bernie bros insofar as they want to move away from neoliberal, corporate aiding policy and more to policy that works for the people. I think even some established, mainline Dems are starting to see the writing on the wall there, and changing their tune in public appearances. Ultimately we'll see if the change is genuine or if they'll go back to their old ways when the $$ is waved in front of them.

On the other side, with Republicans, there's the Tea Party, Freedom Caucus, dozens of even more religiously based political groups, the neoliberal corporatist republicans, etc. etc. While there is some overlap between a few factions with individuals, there isn't anything that I'm seeing of a direction forming. It's still a hundred icebergs floating away from the glacier at this point. The Trumpettes v. NeverTrumps don't really do so aligned on policy, the way the Bernie/HRC thing does. There's plenty of Tea Party people out there who fall on both sides of the Trump/not-trump thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
*sigh*

Climate change did not replace global warming, it is caused by global warming. Climate change is the name for the change in the climate caused by the average increase of temperatures across the board. And while we're on the topic; no, global warming did not replace the theory that the next ice age is coming either. It should start in one to two thousand years.

Why does this belong in US politics? Because the rest of the first world understands this while a minority in the US disagree for purely political reasons. If a person was told one piece of medical advice by a doctor and a politician said it wasn't true one would take the doctor's opinion. He's spent his life studying the topic and further, politicians have a reputation for less-than-honesty. But when the same thing happens in climatology republicans suddenly decide that the politician is a more reliable source.

At this point denying reality isn't a trend among republicans but a basic requirement.

I was told by one of the scientists at my university that one of the big reasons for the shift from the term global warming to climate change is because people with no real knowledge of climate processes kept pointing out that some areas were seeing record cold weather at various points in the winter. According to the specific area she studies (she is an atmospheric geologist. . . if that makes no sense to you. . . . basically she studies the arctic and antarctic ice (the geology part) and atmospheric changes). Essentially, the polar ice cap controls the jet stream. As Terra warms up, ice cap melts (now, there is normal melt/freeze processes up there, however what these professionals are noting is that many years in a row there was considerably greater percentages of ice melted each year until 2 years ago, finally, we hit 100% melt for the first time in recorded history) which alters where the cold/hot line is in the jet stream. This process apparently also has a major effect on just how cold things get on the cold side.


Also, your example of medicine isn't the best. . . there's plenty of people who abandon modern medicine for their religious texts, sometimes to the death of their own children.

I think politically, having people who don't have a basic understanding of things they are expected to make policy on is just a bad idea. Hell, we saw this the other day with Zuckerberg and hist testimony. . . The "best" thing to come out of that were the memes that have been springing up. Many of the questions were simply cringe worthy as they clearly showed a lack of basic understanding of the issue at hand.

I actually pick the doctor example there for that reason; the people who abandon the qualified opinion eat the consequences, which is part of the point I was making.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
You can quote me on this, but there'll be no nuclear war. Nobody is that daft.

A few cruise missiles will get lobbed into Syria, some camels and 1970s ex-Soviet tanks will get taken out, and that'll be the end of it.

And we'll be back here again next year discussing more possible action.

Perhaps, but major world leaders were absolutely daft enough to start a massive war over some dude in a goofy hat getting shot by some nobody. There also isn't a great track record of people saying that it'll be a piece of cake in regards to the US starting wars.



So I am leaning pretty dang hard on the "whatever means not starting nuclear war is preferable to starting nuclear war" side of things.

Evidently:
Haley: U.S. has enough 'proof' to act, Trump reviewing options on Syria

Apparently both Chlorine and Sarin gas were used, which was validated via blood tests.

 whembly wrote:
Evidently:
Haley: U.S. has enough 'proof' to act, Trump reviewing options on Syria

Apparently both Chlorine and Sarin gas were used, which was validated via blood tests.

I don't doubt for a minute that chemical weapons are getting used in Syria, but the fundamental question still remains: what's in it for the USA?

Long ago, the great statesmen, the Bismarcks, the Palmerston's the FDRs of this world, would make rational decisions on foreign policy based on logic. For sure, these people made mistakes, but there was usually a rhyme or reason for their actions.

Why did the British Empire support a Jewish homeland in Palestine in 1917? Because they want a friendly nation next to the vital Suez Canal link.

Why did Britain invade and occupy Syria in 1941? To stop Vichy France from allowing the Germans the use of Syria as an airbase to attack the Suez Canal and Egypt.

Why does Britain guarantee Polish security in 1939? Because it was British policy for 200 years not to let the balance of power be upset in Europe. Very bad for business otherwise.

And so on and so on...

The lessons are there in history. As I said earlier, the USA used to have smart and rational and grown up politicians who would make good decisions.

So let's be smart here again:

1. Is the USA under threat from imminent attack from Syria? No.
2. Is Israel, a key ally, in danger? No.

Those are the only questions that need to be asked.

There is no need, and no gain, from the USA getting involved in a bitter civil war. If Assad wins, it's a known quantity, the devil you know.

If he loses, it's God knows who's taking over.

I don't mean too sound heartless, but in a civil war where hundreds of thousands of people have died from bullets and shells, and now people are getting worked up about a few chemical attacks?

It's a strange logic at work here...






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
You can quote me on this, but there'll be no nuclear war. Nobody is that daft.

A few cruise missiles will get lobbed into Syria, some camels and 1970s ex-Soviet tanks will get taken out, and that'll be the end of it.

And we'll be back here again next year discussing more possible action.

Perhaps, but major world leaders were absolutely daft enough to start a massive war over some dude in a goofy hat getting shot by some nobody. There also isn't a great track record of people saying that it'll be a piece of cake in regards to the US starting wars.



So I am leaning pretty dang hard on the "whatever means not starting nuclear war is preferable to starting nuclear war" side of things.

The unique circumstances that created WW1 will never be repeated. This Syria debacle is not in the same league. Not by the longest of long shots.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Evidently:
Haley: U.S. has enough 'proof' to act, Trump reviewing options on Syria

Apparently both Chlorine and Sarin gas were used, which was validated via blood tests.

I don't doubt for a minute that chemical weapons are getting used in Syria, but the fundamental question still remains: what's in it for the USA?

Long ago, the great statesmen, the Bismarcks, the Palmerston's the FDRs of this world, would make rational decisions on foreign policy based on logic. For sure, these people made mistakes, but there was usually a rhyme or reason for their actions.

Why did the British Empire support a Jewish homeland in Palestine in 1917? Because they want a friendly nation next to the vital Suez Canal link.

Why did Britain invade and occupy Syria in 1941? To stop Vichy France from allowing the Germans the use of Syria as an airbase to attack the Suez Canal and Egypt.

Why does Britain guarantee Polish security in 1939? Because it was British policy for 200 years not to let the balance of power be upset in Europe. Very bad for business otherwise.

And so on and so on...

The lessons are there in history. As I said earlier, the USA used to have smart and rational and grown up politicians who would make good decisions.

So let's be smart here again:

1. Is the USA under threat from imminent attack from Syria? No.
2. Is Israel, a key ally, in danger? No.

Those are the only questions that need to be asked.

There is no need, and no gain, from the USA getting involved in a bitter civil war. If Assad wins, it's a known quantity, the devil you know.

If he loses, it's God knows who's taking over.

I don't mean too sound heartless, but in a civil war where hundreds of thousands of people have died from bullets and shells, and now people are getting worked up about a few chemical attacks?

It's a strange logic at work here...

I mean to me, just a lay person here who reads the news, it seems like a publicity stunt version of the "The US as world police" (Which, I want to call the Truman Doctrine, but that doesn't sound right). I mean we're not really... doing anything. We're going to throw bombs at them (Last time we did what, blow up a few Migs?) and that's about it?

It's getting good press, because we're "Standing up for Humanity" but... I mean as you said, we don't really have any reason to do it, and this is the plan from people who heavily criticized (And I would say Rightly criticized) the last administration for Drone Strikes.

I'm willing to recognize I might be missing some nuance here, if someone has some point I'm missing.

As someone who has active duty military in my immediate family... This is never something I -Like- to see in the news either.

Realistically Trump has to do something because Trump ordered strikes before. Trump drew a line in the sand when it happened and decided to strike. Whatever the reason behind the previous strike was doesn't matter now, Trump set the precedent to retaliate at the signs of an obvious chemical weapons attack. Now there has been an even worse attack. Not responding to it as hegemon and primary normative driver behind the international system is only going to further erode the international position of the US. It would also reflect badly on Trump himself.

While Trump might not have thought about the wider international consequences to the US position in the world, not doing something will only make those states opposed to the US system bolder and will see US prestige slide amongst its allies. Its important to remember how much the US has profited and still profits from its position as global (normative) leader.

Yes, it will likely be useless in the long run. But being seen to do something by the world is still better than nothing.

Edit: Trump has really messed up on the strikes though by being so public about them. Syria has had time to disperse its forces to minimize damage by now.

What we've got here is a situation in which the existing world order, largely based on western pluralistic liberal democracy with the rule of law (for all its faults, headed by the USA supported by allies such as the UK and Japan, still better than the alternatives) is being eroded by the provocative behaviour of countries like Syria and Russia flouting various international treaties which prohibit the use of chemical weapons.

This is a case where the "west" must in some way stand up, draw a line in the sand, and let the perps know that they have gone too far. A severe military beat-down would be a good way to do this, but for various reasons it's going to be very difficult to pull off.

One of those reasons is Trump's flip-flopping on the issue, which has made the usual Russian intransigence even harder to read than normal because the Russians are reacting to a USA that's become intransigent and hard to read.

That being said, the "west" can actually make a lot of progress by rattling its sabres loudly, moving subs into launch range and so on, but ultimately allowing itself to be persuaded into some kind of diplomatic process (for example by the Swedes) which will preserve the peace and simultaneously inform the Syrians that they came this close to a damn good kicking.

If that is what happens we can draw a breath of relief. However we all will have to keep in mind that the next time Assad decides to gas a bunch of children, we really will have to kick the gak out of him whatever the Russians try to do about it.