Print

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

[martinuzz]

I don't know how this could be explained as 'defense of the US'. It's not like Assad gasbombed New York.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The more likely defense would be along the lines of "we were already involved, this is not any kind of new action and Congress never objected until now", but you could argue that any action which advances US interests is a defense of the US. That's superpower politics for you.

But then, the Commander-in-Chief is Donald Trump, so all is but pique and madness.

[wierd]

I will make this easy and simple.

The US government has wanted to invade syria since at least the 90s, for whatever godsdamned reason. It's been some kind of milestone marker they have had or something that they insist on meeting.

Under democrat regimes, it has taken a slow burning fuse approach, but the republican regimes have been whole hog on making it priority 1 for a very long time.  Politically, they have to pull a Putin, (No, totally not invading Ukraine for any specific state advantage! Oh no! TOTALLY doing to secure russian heritage for native russian speakers, or some such bullshit! HONEST!)-- and say that they are "Totally against invading syria! Assad is our BUDDY!" then at the earliest opportunity, "WE MUST INVADE SYRIA! **MUST INVADE!!**"

To me, the million dollar question is "Why do they want to depose Assad and replace him so fucking badly?" I doubt very much that it has anything whatsoever to do with his murdering his own people with chemical weapons, and has more to do with his not playing ball with the objective goals of the US.  Gut instinct: Follow the money; It is the usual motivator for our domestic breed of political filth.

[martinuzz]

Putin has responded to the attack by saying the US violated international law, and seriously damaged relations between Russia and the US with the attack.
He calls it 'an atack on a sovereign nation, for false, made up reasons'.

[ChairmanPoo]

He calls it 'an atack on a sovereign nation, for false, made up reasons'.

Oh hai there Vlad

[misko27]

-snip-

That map is so old it has Yugoslavia on it. It makes me sad. It also does not show Ukraine with Crimea, which is... odd.

I don't know how this could be explained as 'defense of the US'. It's not like Assad gasbombed New York.

Fun fact: Around 25% of terrorist attacks and attempted attacks in the US since 9/11 have targetted New York. Another fun fact: New York would like to politely tell the rest of the world to fuck off please.

Spoiler: wierd (click to show/hide)

The US government has wanted to invade syria since at least the 90s,

News to me.

for whatever godsdamned reason. It's been some kind of milestone marker they have had or something that they insist on meeting.

So you know the US wants to invade Syria through two democrats and two/three republicans, continuously from the fall of the Soviet Union, through 9/11, and until the current day, but can't explain why? So there is some pressing reason to hate Syria that makes Syria more hated than Iraq and Afghanistan (whom we apparently did hate enough to invade) or Iran or North Korea (who we hate seemingly a lot more but haven't invaded?), but this reason is somehow hidden? And even when we were cooperating, post-9/11, and were using them as the most common location for extraordinary rendition, we were plotting their downfall? Pardon if I'm a little skeptical.

Under democrat regimes,

We call those administrations, "regimes" has a different connotation.

it has taken a slow burning fuse approach, but the republican regimes have been whole hog on making it priority 1 for a very long time.

Then what was the invasion of Iraq? You know, the whole hog priority 1 in 2003? The country next door to Syria? Did they just aim for Syria but miss?

Politically, they have to pull a Putin, (No, totally not invading Ukraine for any specific state advantage! Oh no! TOTALLY doing to secure russian heritage for native russian speakers, or some such bullshit! HONEST!)-- and say that they are "Totally against invading syria! Assad is our BUDDY!" then at the earliest opportunity, "WE MUST INVADE SYRIA! **MUST INVADE!!**"

Why would we have to pull a Putin? Putin hadn't even pulled a Putin at this point! Putin wasn't even in power when you claim we first started inexplicably hating Assad. Why not just pull an Iraq War? I mean we did it the first time! And why attack Iraq if Syria was public enemy number one? And why is right now, years after Syria entered a brutal civil war that has no sign of ending soon, the "earliest opportunity"? What changed? It's not like this is the first time Assad started bombing his citizens.

To me, the million dollar question is "Why do they want to depose Assad and replace him so fucking badly?"

I don't know; do we? I mean we've had a lot of opportunities over the last eight years, why haven't we done so?

I doubt very much that it has anything whatsoever to do with his murdering his own people with chemical weapons, and has more to do with his not playing ball with the objective goals of the US.

First, of course the US supports US interests. The question is whether human rights is one of those interests. Second: why would the US attack now, after apparently having had a hate-boner for the man for two decades? I mean we could have done this three, four years ago and been a lot more effective; the only difference is the man in office. This does not seem like the actions of a coherent decades-spanning policy at all, let alone one with clearly defined goals.

Gut instinct: Follow the money; It is the usual motivator for our domestic breed of political filth.

Overall, I'm concerned by the vitriol/evidence ratio of this post.

I will make this easy and simple.

Deciding that the issue was easy and simple should have been the first clue that something was wrong here. If someone tells you they are going to make geopolitics simple and easy, that person is selling you something.

The simple fact of the matter is the US has been very restrained in Syria, especially relative to the many, many places in recent history that the US has not been restrained, and to the many other countries and organizations that are not restrained in Syria. Syria is really not the place to make the argument that the US has been a cowboy or has a hidden agenda, unless its hidden agenda is "let them kill each other, and let god sort it out."

[mastahcheese]

I just noticed that I haven't been following this thread.

[smjjames]

Honestly, doesn't matter. I do not nor have I ever bought this idea that incidental Russian blood will bring out an actual war. The freaking Turks, who are much weaker than Russia and whom Russia would love to "acquire" shot down Russian jets with active malice, and no war.

The threat of war from a few soldiers being killed is an American trend, not a Russian one. It's essentially propaganda that started as a hysterical condemnation of the Clinton campaign and is now a wild meme, actively rewriting Putin as someone who could genuinely be spurred to a geopolitical action he did not already intend by collateral deaths.

If Turkey WASN'T a NATO member, I don't think they'd be so willing to shoot down the jet. They knew that Russia wouldn't attack them without risking war with NATO. Didn't stop Putin from pointing a bunch of big guns in the vincinity of Turkey and basically saying 'Try that again, I dare you....'.

Can Trump be impeached for ordering a military strike without asking permission from Congress? He breached the Constitution there, didn't he?

It's complicated. In theory, the President engages in specific war at the pleasure of Congress, but in theory the President is also responsible for the defense of the United States in general. Since formal war declarations have become increasingly muddled in the modern era, uh...

It's pretty firmly in the category of "don't piss people off enough that they start thinking about it".

Edit: Oh look, it's already in the examples section, gg wikipedia.

Not surprised that Rand Paul is the one who spoke up.

Also, I was like, 'why didn't Obama do something like this?' After all, there needs to be consequences for using chemical warfare, especially against their own civillians.

He calls it 'an atack on a sovereign nation, for false, made up reasons'.

Oh hai there Vlad

Funny how the name of the image is 'mapof-ukraine' when it's actually Europe with Ukraine filled in with green. Also, whoever did that, they omitted Crimea, lol.

Anyhow, such hypocrisy from Putin.

Though to be fair, the US has done it's share of invading, but not as a permanent territorial addition.

@wierd: Democrat 'regiemes'? Freudian slip much? lol.

[Starver]

So, who has currently got the Dimension Jump device, so we can compare the first 100 days of 'Warhawk' President (Mrs) Clinton against our 'Rabid bobcat in a bag chock full of other bobcats' President Trump..?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Unfortunately, our reality coordinates are currently under an interdiction field. Apparently the Metaearth Council considers us to be a part of something called "The True Darkness" now and has banned all travel to and from our worldline.

[Egan_BW]

But don't worry, we're building transuniversal cannons as we speak to break through the barrier and spread our world's unique love to the multiverse.

[Max™]

I'll go, I'll totally be back too, honest injun.

[Arx]

Unfortunately, our reality coordinates are currently under an interdiction field. Apparently the Metaearth Council considers us to be a part of something called "The True Darkness" now and has banned all travel to and from our worldline.

...did we have to pay for the wall?

[Max™]

Apparently the sheaf of timelines where Spain capitalized on an early scuffle between France and England by colonizing the Pacific seaboard and expanding east, resulted in the development of the ESE (Estados Socialistas Españoles, the Spanish Socialist States) as the resident hyperpower since they were able to defuse the tensions that lead to the cold war while keeping the space race, and by the present day have a significant orbital presence, explorers on Mars, cloud colonies on Venus, and asteroid mining under way. Given the vast material wealth available to that sheaf, they apparently donated the interdiction equipment freely, so in a certain sense, Mexico paid for it.

[martinuzz]

Russia has cancelled the agreement with the US which guarantees the safety of air forces operating in the same airspace over Syria.