Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Antioch]

Remember the part where I said Trump was an impulsive idiot?


Nobody even has a clue what happened at the site of the gas attack and the missiles are already flying.

[Sheb]

Remember the part where I said Trump was an impulsive idiot?


Nobody even has a clue what happened at the site of the gas attack and the missiles are already flying.

Well, he didn't go public with the evidence, but there might be some. Boris Johnson was also on record as saying the evidence he saw indicated it was Assad, even if he refused to say what the evidence was.

[Antioch]

Remember the part where I said Trump was an impulsive idiot?


Nobody even has a clue what happened at the site of the gas attack and the missiles are already flying.

Well, he didn't go public with the evidence, but there might be some. Boris Johnson was also on record as saying the evidence he saw indicated it was Assad, even if he refused to say what the evidence was.

Just like we just had to trust them that they had proof of WMD's in Iraq in 2003?

[PTTG??]

It's funny, I was just thinking, "You know what the US really needs? Another god-damned war in the middle east."

[Antioch]

Didn't the Pentagon release their evidence publicly? I'm sure I saw that somewhere. Unless that was talking about the chemical attack, as opposed to the missile strike?

Also what's genuinely interesting about this is it's one of the few times I'm seeing people on both 'sides' have completely divergent reactions. Some Trump fans are horrified at the strike, saying 'I'm off the Trump Train'. Others are calling it 15-D chess and so forth. And the same on the other side - plenty of 'impulsive idiot Trump' comments, but I've also seen plenty of comments from Obama and Hillary supporters lauding Trump for responding after the horrific images shown of the gas attack.

For my part, I'm withholding judgment for now (though I'm certainly opposed to being drawn further into yet another Middle-Eastern conflict that will likely only end up passing more power to the Islamists). There's too much we don't know. As a show of force, the strike could work surprisingly well, given the overall lack of casualties combined with the 'unexpected' nature. It'll certainly keep potential enemies on their toes. But it could also lead to an unwanted confrontation with Russia, and it could reveal weakness on Trump's part; a potential ability to be led or manipulated.

The coming weeks are going to be interesting.

I can't find any release of evidence.

[Helgoland]

The Guardian has sent a reporter to the site of the attack. Unsurprisingly the Russian story is complete and utter bullshit, while the 'Western' one apparently is spot-on.

[misko27]

Also what's genuinely interesting about this is it's one of the few times I'm seeing people on both 'sides' have completely divergent reactions. Some Trump fans are horrified at the strike, saying 'I'm off the Trump Train'. Others are calling it 15-D chess and so forth. And the same on the other side - plenty of 'impulsive idiot Trump' comments, but I've also seen plenty of comments from Obama and Hillary supporters lauding Trump for responding after the horrific images shown of the gas attack.

That's because people are being reminded that the world does not revolve around Trump, and no issue is less about Trump than military action. There are very well defined sides in this, they just happen cut across the Trump divide and the left-right spectrum, and we're so used to those that it's weird to see people break along other lines.

[Neonivek]

One reason why the US sits pretty and attacks at the slightest provocation and Russia needs to be pushed is rather simple.

The US is safe from anyone who would oppose them and any war has no chance of ever coming back to the USA. As well the USA isn't really responsible for anyone either, their direct actions do not hurt anyone they care about indirectly.

While Russia is surrounded by enemies who can walk over, they have several nations between them and other enemies who would be in the crossfire as well.

Basically the US has no vested interest in peacekeeping so to speak.

[Azzuro]

One reason why the US sits pretty and attacks at the slightest provocation and Russia needs to be pushed is rather simple.

The US is safe from anyone who would oppose them and any war has no chance of ever coming back to the USA. As well the USA isn't really responsible for anyone either, their direct actions do not hurt anyone they care about indirectly.

While Russia is surrounded by enemies who can walk over, they have several nations between them and other enemies who would be in the crossfire as well.

Basically the US has no vested interest in peacekeeping so to speak.

Wut.

By your logic the US should have nuked North Korea into the dust in 2009.

[Neonivek]

Ohh but you forget the part I didn't put in

The US is very cowardly and only picks fights with enemies significantly weaker than them to the point of being near or outright defenseless.

THAT and... really what did North Korea do in 2009 that was so bad?

[Sheb]

The Guardian has sent a reporter to the site of the attack. Unsurprisingly the Russian story is complete and utter bullshit, while the 'Western' one apparently is spot-on.

Sounds interesting. Got a link? Certainly given the difficulty of manufacturing Sarin (To quote Derek Lowes: "The idea of working in a process plant where hydrogen fluoride isn’t the nastiest thing in the house gives me the shivers.") The idea that it was a manufacturing plan makes no sense, but I guess some stockpiling of weapons stolen from Assad one way or another wouldn't be entirely imossible.

Ohh but you forget the part I didn't put in

Neo, I think that quote showcase the difficulty of discussing with you in a nutshell.

[misko27]

Are you calling North Korea an equal of the US Neo? Seriously?

It's completely uncontroversial to say that whoever happens to be the President at any point over the last few decades could give an order at 10 AM and have North Korea wiped off the map before the day is out. I mean, seriously. Literally, even.

[Neonivek]

Are you calling North Korea an equal of the US Neo? Seriously?

No no no, of course not.

But there is a difference between North Korea and... a bunch of substance farmers with rifles.

Also no I didn't leave out a part on purpose xD I just forgot that part.

[Helgoland]

The Guardian has sent a reporter to the site of the attack. Unsurprisingly the Russian story is complete and utter bullshit, while the 'Western' one apparently is spot-on.

Sounds interesting. Got a link?

Here you go. It's all information gathered by one of their reporters on site. If this isn't proof, 2 + 2 = Being photographed by Caesar.

[Azzuro]

One reason why the US sits pretty and attacks at the slightest provocation and Russia needs to be pushed is rather simple.

The US is safe from anyone who would oppose them and any war has no chance of ever coming back to the USA. As well the USA isn't really responsible for anyone either, their direct actions do not hurt anyone they care about indirectly.

While Russia is surrounded by enemies who can walk over, they have several nations between them and other enemies who would be in the crossfire as well.

Basically the US has no vested interest in peacekeeping so to speak.

Ok to put it in simpler terms, your analysis is completely wrong. The US makes a huge fuss over their soldiers getting killed because to not do so would be political suicide domestically. The effects on 'anyone they care about' (I actually have no idea what you're referring to here, so I'll assume it to be other nations in this context) also have a huge impact on their response to provocation, insofar as the US military covers a lot of allied nations' defence needs, and they can't afford to look weak. The point about North Korea is that the US is completely capable of rolling over them in less than a week and with zero damage to the continental US, but also causing unacceptable (literal?) fallout to South Korea and Japan, so in this case the effects on other nations are being considered into US decision-making. You will note that North Korea has done a hell of a lot more provoking than the Syrian government has, with near-zero military repercussions from the US.

Oh, and the US first confirmed North Korea's possession of nuclear weapons in 2009.

In contrast, Russia has basically no domestic politics to speak of, so there's no internal pressure to save face other than to the international community. They (by which I mean Putin) can afford to wait and not respond to provocation (see Turkish military shooting down a Russian fighter with explicitly hostile intent) if doing so would not be in their favour in the long term. I again have no idea what you mean when you say 'enemies who can walk over', but the second part of your sentence there is also false. You're implying that the only reason Russia won't start a war with the US is out of concern for all the poor Eastern Europeans in the way, and anyway Russia's current geopolitical rivals, with the exception of the US, all share a land border with them or their satellite states.

Ohh but you forget the part I didn't put in

Neo, I think that quote showcase the difficulty of discussing with you in a nutshell.

This. Silly me for not reading your mind and responding to arguments you haven't written!