Syria: It’s a complicated issue and there are strong arguments on both sides

5

The XYZ has always been a forum for differing opinions, and the US airstrike on Syria in response to the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime is no exception.

You can read some excellent arguments made against Trump’s actions by Moses Apostaticus here for The XYZ, and here for The Daily Caller. He argues strongly that the intelligence which led to the strike was compromised, and that the long-term effects of the action, and the potential for regime change in Syria and a major war with Russia, could be the decline and fall of the West.

I have analysed the historical situation which led to the current crisis here and argue that Trump is making a point; ie, the word of the President of the United States of America means something again, and you mess with the United States at your peril. I have also whacked together a highly entertaining tabloid here, where I float the suggestion that Trump is playing 4D chess.

Many of these contrary arguments are reflected in the following debate between Stefan Molyneux and Bill Mitchell:

Both have been key backers of Donald Trump, and they both backed him early. Molyneux was particularly effective in influencing public opinion due to the stupendous size of his audience. Mitchell carries clout because he called the election result correctly from the very beginning; he understood the power of Trump’s persuasive technics and the depth of his strategic thinking.

Molyneux shares Moses’ skepticism regarding the validity of the intelligence regarding the use of chemical weapons, while I agree with Mitchell that Trump is making a strong impression early, and that this is paying off already with cooperation from China in confronting North Korea.

(You can read analysis of the looming confrontation with North Korea from Greg Sheridan here, who points out the irony in Trump’s strategy: “Avoid a nuclear holocaust and we won’t press so hard on beef exports?”)

Both Molyneux and Mitchell make arguments which I agree and disagree with. For example, although I agree with Mitchell that it is important to send strong signals with decisive military action, and that regime change is not Trump’s endgame – his endgame is safe zones and an end to the refugee crisis – I agree with Molyneux, not Mitchell, that the USA should not be the world’s policeman. However, I disagree with Molyneux’s reason for this – that this would make the world a safer place; I believe a less interventionist USA would make the world more unstable, but the world needs a little bit of instability to make it appreciate again the occasional bad that comes with the good that is American global leadership.

What is most striking then, is that two extremely intelligent people who agree on 95% of the information they discuss, and whose political principles coincide very strongly, can arrange the information in different ways to reach starkly differing conclusions. This for me is encouraging, given that the old right and new right are currently divided: those who disagree with Trump’s action and no longer support Trump; those who disagree with Trump but still support him; and those who agree with his actions and support him. I believe that all three positions are based on principle, something which distinguishes us from the regressive left. The debate between Molyneux and Mitchell gets quite heated, but always remains respectful, and sticks to the facts; again an advantage we have over the left.

The one thing we can take from the left is the determination to always come together to face the common enemy. Regardless of whether or not you support Trump and/or his actions, those of us opposed to the regressive left generally still want the government to leave us alone but protect our borders, want an end to the political correctness and identity politics which is dividing us, and well, no more white genocide.

You can let The XYZ know quantitatively what you think of Trump’s actions in the Viewer Poll below, and qualitatively in the comments section.

Do you support Donald Trump's aggressive foreign policy and military action in Syria and North Korea?

  • Yes to both (50%, 164 Votes)
  • Syria no, North Korea yes. (24%, 80 Votes)
  • No to both. (20%, 67 Votes)
  • All hail the Islamic State. (3%, 11 Votes)
  • Syria yes, North Korea no. (2%, 6 Votes)

Total Voters: 328

Loading ... Loading ...
  • Grant Summers

    Personally I’m not worried about North Korea after we just spent $50 Billion on fabulous new submarines. All we need to do is drag this out until 2060 when our state of the art subs arrive.

  • I am very disappointed in Trump.
    Trump’s Syrian kneejerk false flag debacle and now military adventurism regarding North Korea.
    High stakes nuclear adventurism, at that.

    Has Trump swapped brains with Hillary, that is how it seems.
    Trump is really dragging his feet on core promises he made during the Presidential campaigns.
    He promised rapprochement with Russia, but has only managed to piss them off ” bigly.”
    He promised to shut down NATO,now he says NATO is great !

    I think he has rolled over, he is just like the rest of the corrupt elites. Maybe the Deep State has him by the balls.
    What a disappointment, so far.
    Has failed to drain the swamp in any meaningful way,too.
    Hillary was going to be investigated. Not happening.

    The First Daughter of the USA, Ivanka, clearly has enormous influence over her Daddy President.
    Kushner also has undue influence.
    He seems to be CEO of the USA now, pulling the marionette strings…….
    I won’t mention the obviously deep Jewish connections of Kushner. ( oops, sorry, I just did )
    Kushner and Ivanka are now Washington’s power couple, that’s for sure. Makes you think.

    Maybe Trump is playing some 10th dimensional chess, as people say, but it sure is a pretty shitty chess game with shitty moves, so far.

    I hope he stays true to his campaign promises.
    Not holding my breath.

  • Ray Johnston

    Very complicated indeed. What if that new ‘info’ about the chemical attack being a Saudi-Israeli drone from a Jordanian base turns out to be real and Assad was telling the truth? Also news from Tehran yesterday “The former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has registered his name for the country’s presidential election later in May, despite the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s advice last year that he should not run again for the post.”

  • Addelad

    On balance I am with Deplorable Bucky below. I do not possess the deep understanding of global affairs that Mitchell and Molyneux have, but clearly Trump is not honouring a series of promised reforms as itemised by DB. To me, the worst by far is upsetting the Russians again, bombing a target that ultimately assists Sunni Muslim ambitions (again) and in so doing, robbing us of a clear sense of action against our true enemy.
    Syria now seems to be yet another US misadventure in the bottomless quagmire of the ME; for God’s sake, where to after “we” get rid of Assad? Will the so-called rebels form a group rather like the US founding fathers and appoint a latter-day Washington to resurrect their melange of warring tribes disguised as a nation?
    Or is it more likely that said melange shall simply metastasize into yet another hideous Islamic hell-hole replete with tribal hatreds and concomitant evil-doing?
    I think I know the answer to that question.

  • Bikinis not Burkas

    There is a very easy way to stop Muslims and Islamic violence in their tracks. Show them that the Quran was written by a mad man and not a relelation from a god!
    1. All trees are NOT male or female unless they are date palms!
    2. The sun does NOT set in a pool of muddy water.
    3. The sun does NOT reside under allahs chair until he releases it in the morning.

    4. Shooting stars are NOTt missiles thrown at devils.
    5. Sperm does NOT eminate from between the ribs and backbone.
    Etc, etc.
    Muhammad the necrophiliac plagerised the Bible and the Torah that is why in the Sunna he is known as the Ear!