Warning - while you were typing 11 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.That's why you don't aggravate your opponent with small shit like this. You either avoid war, or commit to it.
This is how I approach social situations in real life. I put up with anything, but when I get mad I'm going to
tear you apart. And I have. It's not fun for anyone. Also a Machiavelli point: never injure, either leave someone be or destroy them utterly. But as Machiavelli would love to remind us, it's not so simple. Examples don't always hold.
In terms of credibility the US has always had more when it comes to diplomacy. Now though, with Trump administration is essentially handling diplomacy the way Russia always has (bluff your ass off, threaten use of force), they're probably less capable of achieving any sort of diplomatic solution with Russia because we're playing at their level. And so instead they'll double down on the harsh worlds, bluffs and eventual use of force.
That's an interesting argument. However, I'd like to just say that bluffs, threats, and the like can work. I mean, the US and the USSR bluffed, threatened, argued, and sometimes even worse during the Cold War, but we all came out of it without a single war between the superpowers. Sure, there were also many cooler heads in both the US and the USSR, but plenty of hotheads too. It's complicated; it has to be, otherwise we would have had a war already. I've always liked that the lessons of the world wars contrasted so strongly with each other: one as a slow-rolling crisis from which no one was willing to back down or see the ultimate consequences; the other an ever escalating bonfire, to which appeasement was merely throwing wood on the fire. Taken together, the wars are an excellent demonstration of the dangers of overreliance on assumptions or specific examples.
Syria was and still is a quagmire. Obama understood that. It sucks that we essentially had to stand around and watch Syrians die by the thousands, but it was that or deepen our commitment to Syria, directly confront the Russian and start a new regional conflict. I've hated what's happened in Syria but without the rest of the world behind us, I was unwilling to watch the US take on direct responsibility for the whole thing. I think that's how Obama might have felt too. We like coming to people's rescue but the cost has become higher and higher every time we do so.
As a hawk myself, this has been more-or-less my position. Syria is a quagmire. I wish more conversations about it focused on that point, because it's a helluva quagmire. Now I'm of the opinion that action earlier could have prevented this, and even of the opinion that action now can get a net positive out of our efforts... But it's a hell of a commitment to make, and thus far no one has made the case for it in government. And when it comes to something like Syria, low-level escalation just keep the conflict burning: as you said, sometimes it comes down to committing or washing your hands of it. I do believe if someone (not Trump) came out, and made a serious argument for boots on the ground, explaining clearly who the administration plans on putting in power, working on this ahead of time, all that jazz, that the US could go in there and stage a humanitarian intervention that would save more lives than letting the war continue. But no one's done that. So we've effectively comitted ourselves to peace, but we're getting ansty.
The syrian ambassador credibility is akin to flat earth conspiracy advocates.
The Syrian ambassador is talking right now. He's claiming that the chemical weapons used were not from Assad, but rather from terrorists attacking Syria. He claims that the airbase the US destroyed had women and children inside, who died in the attack, placing the US in the same category as the terrorists who used the chemical weapons.
Most of these claims have already been proven untrue...but still, owch.
The level of conspiracy-theorizing that has overtaken the internet in general, and on this issue in particular, is more than a little frightening. I saw a few arguments about how this has the potential to be a sort of quid-pro-quo between Trump and Russia; I mean that's an interesting thought to entertain, but there's not really evidence for it. But then I saw the argument repeated far and wide; meanwhile conspiracies about chemical weapons are running rampant. Bay12 has actually been a hell of a lot better on this then on some contentious issues, and personally I'm quite grateful for that. It reminded me about those lines from Nate Rosegold's 14 possible outcomes of the Trump Administration; one of them involved Trump being relatively popular, but the administration plunged into quiet, conspiracies swirl from all sides, no one knows what to believe anymore and believes whatever they want to believe; that was the "dictator-lite" outcome if I recall. It's worrying.
... and that trump shouldn't be commander in chief, since he either didn't have the area checked for non-combatants or didn't care. So far as that scenario goes. I'd be willing to try squishing them together and seeing if they cancel out, though, if we're doing this kind of conjecture.
E: Honestly, I think my next check is to see whether the russian PM was correct about the congressional approval thing. After attempting a nap, if I don't forget/get distracted. If they were, it'd put much less ambiguity on whether what he did was a violation of american law and/or executive power.
You know, I remember back when Obama shocked the country by asking for permission, a lot of people were arguing about whether he even needed to ask. It was the sort of thing which would generate grumbling, and probably some unflattering campaign ads, but would have certainly been allowed by Congress since they generally supported the strikes; but as soon as Obama actually asked, Congress promptly tore itself to bits before events ultimately overtook them. Generall you don't ask because it reminds people that there needs to be an asking in the first place, which then reminds us that all these issues are thoroughly murky since the Supreme Court has never ruled on them. Generally, the issue is avoided by pretending there is no issue; which is done by acting as if there is a specific thing that is done or asked about and the understanding that the President will not go over their bounds. Perhaps a distinction that may be lost on Trump, but I doubt Republicans want to prosecute this case so-to-speak.
Author
Topic: AmeriPol thread (Read 4241636 times)