Current Events > Who handled Syria better? Obama or Trump?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Which approach did you find better?
---

Obama.

I don't remember what he did but I'm pretty sure he didn't launch missiles like a moron by harming more innocent lives.
---

Trump is a man of swift and carefully calculated action.

Obama is a man of incompetence.
---

Blusalina posted...

Obama.

I don't remember what he did but I'm pretty sure he didn't launch missiles like a moron by harming more innocent lives.

I'm guessing you know nothing about the attack that just happened.
---

Impossible to say, as Trump has only started to handle it.
Obama, for his part, was very cautious and seems to have resisted the calls of a number of top advisors to take more, well, action like Trump just has. Personally, I lean towards believing that the time to act has long since past, since there's no coherent faction to back that isn't either evil(Assad, ISIS, Al-Qaeda off-shoots) or purely sectarian(Kurds).

The one that didn't launch murderbombs

I mean, I'm not even a Trump fan, but he is the obvious choice. How can you even vote for Obama, given the situation and circumstances there, it's clear he failed miserably in dealing with any problems in Syria. The situation only got significantly worse while he was in office.

That doesn't mean Trump will necessarily be better, but the jury is still out with Trump. Objectively, looking at the situation in Syria, Obama was a complete and utter failure in this regard.
---

jenningsnash313 posted...

I mean, I'm not even a Trump fan, but he is the obvious choice. How can you even vote for Obama, given the situation and circumstances there, it's clear he failed miserably in dealing with any problems in Syria. The situation only got significantly worse while he was in office.

That doesn't mean Trump will necessarily be better, but the jury is still out with Trump. Objectively, looking at the situation in Syria, Obama was a complete and utter failure in this regard.

Objectively, not bombing a place is better than bombing a place. Just ignore it and stop being the world police

We honestly can't answer this until all the pieces fall. I shit on Trump a lot, but I was all for that move personally. We'll have to see what the fallout is though.

As a left-leaning voter, I thought it was handled well. Missiles instead of ground soldiers. Giving the Russians a warning prior. Firing them at a time when the base was minimally staffed. Actually sticking to your red line statements. I applaud Trump on this one.

It's about time something was done too. The Syrian crisis was unique in that it showed the world that being isolationist causes problems too. These are really hard decisions and certainly the mistakes of the Iraq War don't want to be repeated. But not getting involved at the start of all of this led to the destruction of nearly an entire country with a mass exodus of refugees into Europe (our allies) and weight is certainly being felt as a result of the inaction.

Would I wish we could be isolationist and leave the world alone? Absolutely. Maybe we'd have things like universal health care, cheaper higher education, etc.

But the foreign policy of the past 80 years can't suddenly just take a 180 and expect there to be zero consequences. It's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation that will have innocents dying regardless of the actions (or inactions) taken. We can only look in hindsight and go "what if..."

But a country with as high of a military budget as the U.S. responding to a government's use of chemical weapons on its civilians? It's an important statement to make.
---