Print

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

[Frumple]

Seriously in a sense, I guess, the same way you're serious about anyone who has power that's unstable and demonstrably either can't or won't maintain a position on basically anything.

Though I guess there's some degree of something like amusement, now that you mention it, that he's upheld a sideline campaign promise by stabbing a major one right in the back and dancing on the entrails. It's pretty trump, I suppose.

@MC: Yeah yeah, just to make it clear I'm aware. Language's getting a bit more aggressive and particularly more vulgar because I have a headache straight from hell, but m'still making sure to be pretty careful not to directly go off on anyone. Hell, I'm not really annoyed or whatever with anyone here, 'cause it's not like I can't understand frustration with the situation as was or ideological commitments against chemical warfare or whatever even when it's causing people to repeatedly shove words in my mouth, I'm just about three kinds of pissed regarding the situation itself, and several more kinds of completely untrusting of this administration to be able to handle the particular situation with any of the capability it deserves, to say nothing of what the last entirety of my life has taught me about american efficacy when it comes to intervention in situations like syria.

[mastahcheese]

I know, Frumple. And again, it's not towards you or any other specific person.
I just like this thread, and sometimes I worry that someone would go looking through it, get the wrong impressions, and call Toady over something that's completely within our capacity to handle.

I'm paranoid, sorry.

[martinuzz]

Nikki Haley has made it known that recent events hae made removing Assad from power one of the priorities of the US. She told CNN 'There is no possible solution that includes Assad as head of state'. When asked what other priorities she had in mind, she said that defeating IS, and removing Iran's influence from Syria are two.

http://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/amerikaanse-vn-ambassadeur-verdrijven-assad-nu-een-van-de-prioriteiten~a4484918/

So I guess prepare for US - Russian conflict, unless Russia cancels it's pact with Assad. Perhaps US - Iran conflict as well.

I wonder, on a scale of 1 to Cuba missile crisis, how this would have rated 40 years ago.

[Helgoland]

If this was a real conversation I would have no recourse but to punch you in your libelous mouth.

Sweet, a personal threat of violence. That's a new low, as far as I am aware - we didn't even manage that when the Crimean Crisis was hot.

Do not insult me again.

Ooooh, another one. I should start counting, really - these are practically the Purple Hearts of internet culture, right? Regardless I would like to point your attention to the fact that I did not insult you: There's a tiny thing known as an 'if statement' in my post. If you've got a better idea, let us hear it - I'll be the first to cheer a viable solution that does not involve lobbing bombs at people! If you do not, and still oppose an intervention, my statements are factually accurate, and there is nothing libelous about them.

I refrained from reporting you, by the way, but I'd rather you stop with the threats. Someone else might, and it's never good to see forum members go.

[Frumple]

Actually about half sure an if statement wouldn't have saved you there, helg. That one would have caught you both if it caught either.

Though that said, I can offer you at least one better option than lobbing bombs at people: Get someone that's not the US to lead the bombing. We're fucking terrible at doing much good by it, and if you actually give a shit about the syrian people you'd damn sure want someone else to be at the reigns of any sort of intervention.

Nikki Haley has made it known that recent events hae made removing Assad from power one of the priorities of the US. She told CNN 'There is no possible solution that includes Assad as head of state'. When asked what other priorities she had in mind, she said that defeating IS, and removing Iran's influence from Syria are two.

Hey, for what it's worth, this administration being what it is it's entirely possible haley is the only one that actually thinks that.

[Helgoland]

Doubtful. If it was the Russians bombing Latvia, we'd be seeing entirely different reactions.

Of course that might not be true here in particular, but I don't think racism and rabid nationalism like the one we'd be seeing in this case are too dissimilar. Race is a social construct after all.

[Antioch]

The problem is that bombing Assad means supporting Al qaida and IS

So yes I am against this strike and I don't have any leads for a better solution than what is already done. Keep Supporting the SDF and Iraqi government in their fight against IS and once IS is destroyed re-evaluate the situation.

Also remember that bombing Assad WILL bring the US into conflict with Russia. Russia is VERY much against attacking Assad and has been for the last four years, which is one of the reasons the entire "the US did nothing" story is just a malicious simplification of the situation.

[Helgoland]

I never quite got that argument. How is keeping Assad from bombing less- or non-Islamist groups helping Al Qaida, who in a power struggle against the former groups would surely be weakened? How is keeping him from bombing civilians, and thus lessening the potential for the 'become a suicide bomber' kind of radicalization, helping it?

What helps Al Qaida is clarifying to the Syrian people that we don't give a shit, and that the only ones who do care about them are the Gulf countries, the same ones that sponsor radical Islamists all over the world. Because, y'know, it fits right in with their narrative of the West waging war against the Muslims.

[Playergamer]

What are these "less or non-islamist groups"? The US gov couldn't find them, all the guns they shipped into Syria went straight to Al-Nusra.

[TempAcc]

It seems non super Assad syrians approve of the attack, surprise surprise

[Azzuro]

What are these "less or non-islamist groups"? The US gov couldn't find them, all the guns they shipped into Syria went straight to Al-Nusra.

>not sure if you're joking. Are you implying that the US government intentionally supplied weapons directly to al-Nusra? If so, quit trolling.

[Flying Dice]

Wow. I'm genuinely surprised to see discussion here not touching at all on how this was an obvious Wag the Dog scenario. Remember how the headlines were about the emerging links between Trump's administration and Russian oligarchs? Remember how Trump warned Putin of the attack in advance (who obviously passed the information on to Assad)? Remember how the military airfield that was the nominal target had all of the important assets removed in advance? Remember how satellite images of the airfield after the attack showed it being essentially untouched? Notice how all the headlines now are about the missile strike even though Trump colluded with the target through a third party to avoid any meaningful damage? Remember how Trump was opposed to doing anything about Syrian chemical weapon attacks?

[Frumple]

It's come up more than once, actually.

[Sergarr]

Remember how satellite images of the airfield after the attack showed it being essentially untouched?

Spoiler: untouched airfield (click to show/hide)

[Flying Dice]

Remember how satellite images of the airfield after the attack showed it being essentially untouched?

Spoiler: untouched airfield (click to show/hide)

The airstrip itself is completely undamaged and Assad's forces had enough forewarning to remove the aircraft and most of their support equipment and supplies before the attack. So some replaceable outbuildings were damaged, what does that matter? It's not doing to do jack shit to stop the base being used.

e: Gee willikers, would you look at that!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/08/syrian-warplanes-take-air-base-bombed-us-tomahawks/
http://abcnews.go.com/US/syrian-jets-off-air-base-hit-us/story?id=46646770

And another thing, Tomahawks don't even carry a large enough payload to effectively crater an airstrip. And these days it's damn easy to repair that sort of damage anyways, it's not like we're in 1920 on a remote island and they have to call in specialist equipment that's weeks away. So even if one missed, it wouldn't have affected the base's usability. The only way any real damage could have been done would have been for the attack to have been a total surprise that destroyed every aircraft and piece of support equipment at the base (unlikely to begin with), but Trump went out of his way to avoid that happening.

It's almost as if the whole affair was a bit of political theater to distract from domestic concerns!

It's come up more than once, actually.

Apologies, I took a look at the latest and didn't want to go dredging back through a bunch of moralizing with little connection to real events. "Is it moral/just to stop the chemical attacks in this manner" doesn't fucking matter when nothing is actually being done. :/