Originally Posted by
DB44
We all know that the media generally is far from trustworthy. Also, in most western countries it seems to be dominated by the left, much like their institutions. We are seeing the argument more and more that the so-called Centre has now moved to the left. Perhaps it has. The fact is that it is very easy for media to fabricate any photos and videos to support their point of view once they cross the line into conspiracy and outright fabrication. Even without outright fabrication they have such an enormous scope in editing and selection that it is simply not needed. Anyone remember the episode of Frontline where Mike Moore's hard hitting expose of the fashion industry was aired as a promotion of that industry?
Whilst I have next to zero faith in the MSM there is little reason to suspect outright fabrication of chemical weapons attacks. And why would the left-wing media even want to assist Trump in his alleged nefarious aims. A conspiracy is certainly possible, but is right at the lower end of the probability spectrum. Occam's razor favours the view that these attacks did indeed occur, and that Assad was the perpetrator. I'm certainly open to evidence that this is not the case, though all I have seen so far is speculation. I also think cmangle has responded to the challenge posed by producing the material that was implied not to exist. Perhaps he made it up or the sources he links to made it up, but there seems to be nothing supporting that his happened except conspiracy theories and conjecture.
Trump has many many faults. There may be many better potential presidents, but flawed as he is he is doing a far better job in this area than Obama did, and I suspect a far better job than Hillary would have done.
As for the question of why the west needs to deal with Putin. The question is nonsense. Countries and their leaders must deal with each other, unless they are purely isolationist, in which case they are often forced to anyway. Putin represents a particular challenge simply because he wants to make Russia great again, just as Trump no doubt represents a particular challenge to other countries. Putin has been very good for Russia in many ways and continues to do so. But he is pushing the boundaries in many areas. Under his rule Russia has annexed Crimea, shot down unarmed passenger aircraft, attempted to assassinate people on foreign soil etc. Where he tests boundaries and finds weakness, he is inclined to push further. Where he is met with strength he is inclined to back off, whilst saving face, at least domestically. This is a dangerous game on both sides, but is how foreign policy works out. Obama has done the world and the US a real disservice in leaving Trump with a legacy of foreign policy weakness. Such weakness ultimately leads to war as surely as unreasonable aggression. If Assad did use chemical weapons, and even publicly available information suggests he did, then the response was at least in my opinion proportionate and appropriate. It is not fair, in the sense that if Russia itself used such weapons a prudent response would not exceed protests and sanctions, but that is reality.
I don't hate Trump, nor do I think he is any more dangerous than Obama. But many here take a different view. Although I disagree with it, I can see why they hold that view and it is not without a reasonable basis. It depends on how you view the relevant facts. But it is easy to let your negative views of Trump blind you. The MSM seems to give him no credit for anything whatsoever. It could well be that this again backfires on them and he receives a second term.
Bookmarks