Not considering - has!

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39523654

Well I had high hopes for US foreign policy under Trump. But now it looks like he's going to do exactly the same as every US President for the past 30 years - bomb brown people.

Maybe this was posted somewhere in the thread already (I haven't kept up for the last two dozen pages or so), but the LA Times published a number of (in my view excellent) editorials this week on this current mess of a presidency.

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-e...est-president/

This is the first one, there are four more parts with a fifth to follow today.

Why are you so surprised? Why would he spend all that money on the military and not use it?

What has me really shit scared is his attitude towards nuclear weapons which seems to be pretty much the same. Remember the interview on MSNBC?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...75774644363264
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...09403376144384
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...63000056254464

Yeah, cos Trump always tells the truth in his tweets

Why would he have any reason to lie 4 years ago?

Oh Loz, you are clearly incredibly naieve with a low emotional intelligence if you are actually genuinely surprised that Trump is reneging on something he has said. He has done it throughout his term thus far as president. What he has said in the past means almost nothing... he is not a rational person.

Yeah, cause he's proven his consistency in his "communication" (aka tweeting), hasn't he...

He said all along he would "bomb Isis". Of course that's not what he actually did, but I can see how it is quite challenging to differentiate between Assad and Isis.

Well at least now Putin is probably not his bff anymore.

Oh and needless to say: striking Assad - very, very bad idea. But hey, what else is new. It's a "real surprise" he would do this. Not

Trump has also stopped claiming the US job reports are fake; I wonder what changed

Campaign promises; they start positioning themselves long before the formal campaign starts.

Just to give my take on the missile strike... I actually approve of Trump's actions here. Obama wanted to do the same in 2013 but couldn't get congressional approval, and it's about time that The West and their allies gave a clear message to Assad that chemical strikes against civilians will not be tolerated. Oh yeah and of course to Russia too, who by supporting him are as guilty of the atrocities as Assad is.

Russia see everything as a pawn or leverage in the political game of world chess that they are playing. However, with most major democratic governments of any worth around the world backing the strike, Putin will complain and blow lots of hot air but I think that's about it. He's not stupid.

Positive point is that the Russians do not appear to have tried to use their extensive missile systems against the Tomahawks.
Hopefully this means there will be no further escalation between US and Russia.

1) How do we know it was Assad that made the chemical attack?
2) It's either ISIS or Assad. Which is better?
3) When America bomb civilians it's good, when Russia bomb them it's bad?
4) Trump ordered the attack, it must be bad, right?

Heebie jeebies - big time THAT is a big can of worms

US launched 59 Tomahawks; I assume they also wanted to take the opportunity to demonstrate the US is bigger and better than Russia who only launched 26 cruise missiles in their October 2015 Syria strike.

An example of "who has the bigger one" on the world stage

Which Trump didn't have either. He didn't even ask for it.

But then again, we already know that he thinks he's above the law and no rules apply to him.

"the 'nuclear option' is in effect." Short termism, sooner or late the Democrats will have a House majority and then the R's will have their regrets

1) We know it wasn't ISIS, they don't have the capacity to drop chemical bombs from planes, and never have. I wonder who in Syria does have that capacity? Oh yeah, Assad. http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/05/mi...-syria-attack/
2) There is no "better", anyone who launches chemical weapons on civilians is scum.
3) America didn't strike civilian targets, it was an airbase. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...-regime-syria/
4) Just because Trump is an unstable maniac, doesn't mean that every action he makes is automatically bad. Why would it?

No offence Loz, but the more you post the more clear it is that you really are not a particularly intelligent person.

Yup, he bypassed congress. However, is that strictly illegal (genuine question)?

Who else would it have been?

Neither. So your solution is what, bomb both until the end of time or what?

It wasn't civilians. And no, the US gets just as much scrutiny upon bombing civilians as Russia does.

In this case of course yes, cause he didn't have any approval whatsoever. Just to be clear, he does not have the power to do whatever he wants and serve as executive, judiciary and legislative all at once. That would be a DICTATORSHIP. Is that seriously what you or anyone in the world wants?

For heaven's sake.