Trump's strike on Syria was the big news over the weekend, but the Trump news cycle has already shifted to his personal problems. Nevertheless, there are real issues with the general use of limited airstrikes, about their effectiveness, their legally, and their use as political theater.
Here are the videos for the meeting:
- Why Trump's "limited strike" on Syria probably won't work
- Miller: Syria strike restores 'red line' on chemical weapons
- Inside the AUMF: America's answer to terrorism
- New efforts for congressional review of AUMF
- Trump’s Syria strike distracts media from internal problems
- Trump juggles many issues affecting approval ratings
Here are the other videos shown at the meeting:
- Trump Sends a $250 Million Message to Syria
- Nikki Haley responds to Larry Kudlow
- Was the joint missile strike on Syria legal
- China says Syria attacks violated international law
- Russia turns to China with landmark gas pipeline
After arguing that responses to chemical attacks are best left to war crimes tribunals after the war is over, Charles Glass, writing in The New York Review in May 2017 concluded with this:
ReplyDelete“What matters is giving the Syrian people a viable future. No party to the conflict—not the United States, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Israel, and hundreds of jihadist militias on one side, or Russia, Iran, Hezbollah, and the Syrian army on the other—cares how many Syrians die. While the conflict endures, all seek power at the expense of ordinary Syrians. Militarists in the White House, Congress, and the US media call for escalation against Assad and Vladimir Putin, but they might serve Syria’s beleaguered population better by seeking an accord with the Russians and Iranians. Until then, there will be more war crimes. And more war.”
A stat given on international tv news: one out of every two citizens of Syria is displaced from their home, either internally or externally.
ReplyDelete