Looks like we just sent 50 Tomahaws that way. Like I posted on RSS. I know this is a political thread but this is world newd. Lets please try to keep it civil.
OT: US BOMBS SYRIA
- Thread starter sparky62
- Start date
- Status
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/06/politics/hillary-clinton-syria-assad/index.html
That link should kill the political effort of this.
That link should kill the political effort of this.
I can't understand someone like al-Assad. What did he possibly think he would gain by using that weapon?? Any military gain was trivial, and the world outrage predictable. How can he be that stupid?
Seems like the best way to send a message without going all in...I fly out of Jordan in July...kinda nervous
Because he has Putin un his corner and up until 2 hours ago, he didn't know if Trump would do anything about it. IIRC he did this a few years ago and Obama talked tough but didn't do anything about it. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.
Its a common trope that dictators cross red lines because we are weak. Notice that he gassed his people again, even after we declared that we would make our military "so strong no one would mess with us". And put in the budget request for it.
In actuality, dictators make decisions to do these things, mostly in response to their own internal calculus of regime security and their own assessment of how things on the ground are going.
The fact that our $700 billion dollar military is now a few billion richer, and a few percent stronger overmatch for already outgunned Syrian forces, is sometimes a relatively small piece of the calculation.
Keep in mind that Assad has something of an ace in the hole compared to Saddam, Gaddafi and others. With Russian boots on the ground, the US isn't nearly as likely to try something like Iraq with the chance of it escalating into WWIII.
All I can figure is that it is a terror tactic, he could have hit the same neighborhood with artillery or bombs, but maybe hopes the gas would terrorize the residents more. But just don't see how that goal would justify the risk of what just happened (tomahawk rain). Just seems stupid.
I'm glad it was small and surgical and let's hope it stops here, from both sides. I support the move 1000%, but nobody wants this to escalate either.
IMO Syria is a mess. The only real talk I will generally credit as "tough" is if the new Administration decides to level with the American people what its options are. One is that we stay the hell out. Two is that we bomb things from a distance like this to keep the forces of evil hobbled from being able to kill "too much". Three is that we are going to "fix" the problem and hope we don't start WWIII in the process.
Three is the only real solution to the Syrian crisis, but it will require American effort measuring in decades, American lives in thousands or maybe even tens of thousands, and dollars in trillions.
Excellent. The Chinese President just finishing dessert & gets this news. Gives NK something to ponder.
No need for our new president to draw lines in the sand...just seeing babies gassed was enough for a strong leader.
They used gas before when they crossed Obamas redline. Obama did nothing. Syrian leaders watch American Media in their anti Trump fit and he likely believed that Trump wouldn't act. Trump was tested and Trump responded. The.... are huddling in their safe spaces trying to decide how to spin this.
It's a new world run by men. God Bless America!
No need for our new president to draw lines in the sand...just seeing babies gassed was enough for a strong leader.
They used gas before when they crossed Obamas redline. Obama did nothing. Syrian leaders watch American Media in their anti Trump fit and he likely believed that Trump wouldn't act. Trump was tested and Trump responded. The.... are huddling in their safe spaces trying to decide how to spin this.
It's a new world run by men. God Bless America!
You are mostly correct. Obama did go to congress to ask approval for a military response but congress would not put a vote for it so neither Obama or congress did anything in response.
Most of it is posturing. While I support 1000% this TLAM stuff, none of it is going to fix the problem.
Air campaigns allow the USG to have effects and collect political brownie points, without having to make real hard decisions about end states and national objectives.
I'm a billion percent certain NK and China are not shaking over this.
Im probably in the minority here. We should stay out. The whole mideast is a mess. We have our own problems here to worry about. We cant police the world. I think this was a poor move. And if Clinton had won and done this, I would say the same thing.
Now I am going back to the yoga pants thread.
Now I am going back to the yoga pants thread.
Didn't Wahoo McDaniels used to vanquish villains like Baron Von Ratschke using his trademark Tomahawk Chop?
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
Don't necessarily disagree, but we also should not be expected to blindly open our borders to all the Syrian refugees, without at least trying to help them fight for their lives and their ability to live life in their homeland.
Refugees have little to do with strikes on a military airfield. That seems a sure way to turn this thread afoul of Sparky.
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
You are right. I 100% agree with you. I have already heard and read the claim that he is doing this simply for political gain. Sorry, should not have let that kind of nonsense cross over here to what has been a pretty even-keel discussion on the subject.
I wish I could believe the strikes will do much. I guess I'm in favor of them, but it leads to the inevitable question of, "Now what." Just an absolute shit sandwich of a geopolitical no-win scenario.
This was a tit for tat.
Absent any other considerations, I'd support going "Full Hilary" and just grounding the dudes Air Force in its entirety.
However, at that point, it becomes a "now what". Have we accomplished what we came to do? You can kill all the folks you want, but you won't do it from the sky? Or at least have your Russian friends drop non-chemical bombs for you?
Of the top half dozen or so powers in that country, virtually none of them are friendly to us. Is the US supposed to fight a real ground war to evict Assad and turn the country over to whom? ISIS? Russia? Iran? Al Nusrah? By virtue of Russia being there, we will never own *all* of it, but probably more importantly, we won't even own the more valuable parts of it.
Trump, Obama, McCain, all those guys wrestling with that basic question over the years.
Politically really easy to do. Nothing really accomplished.
Politics isn't about doing what's right any more it's about doing what is popular and will garner votes.
Politics isn't about doing what's right any more it's about doing what is popular and will garner votes.
I agree with you, going bankrupt fighting second and third world despots seems an unwise decision. Drawing a pointless line in the sand Cold War style also doesn't seem wise. Clinton would have assuredly done the same. Our two parties are a sham. Both create HUGE gov't, line their own pockets and provide scant leadership.
I started these threads & I think it is my responsibility to know when they should be shut down before things to far off track. God Bless America.
All, After speaking with the other mods I'm going to unlock the threads on RSS & HOL. BUT lets keep this on track. On major events we have a 24 hour rule. I've got 8 hours left on a 48 hour shift & I'm headed to the rack. Keep it on the straight & narrow.
Sparky(Todd)
Sparky(Todd)
You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
Know when to run
We just need a foreign policy that has an achievable end game. Neither of the last two presidents had that. On the one hand we had the cowboy Bush who was willing to show military might...but to what end? Obama started out with a so-called apology tour but that will do little to dissuade either terrorists or rogue states. Later his huge increase in military activities like drone killings may have had some immediate effects of knocking out some of the "bad guys" but the collateral damage just increases the anti-Americanism.
The problem for all of us is that there aren't good options in a place like Syria. We need our leaders to honestly tell us this. And, contrary to popular opinion, I don't think it bodes well for the future if our president changes course based on some horrid pictures. It just reinforces the fact there is no end-game in mind.
The problem for all of us is that there aren't good options in a place like Syria. We need our leaders to honestly tell us this. And, contrary to popular opinion, I don't think it bodes well for the future if our president changes course based on some horrid pictures. It just reinforces the fact there is no end-game in mind.
"U.S. officials called the airstrike a “one-off” and said there are no plans for escalation."
Yah as of yet, nothing has been decided in terms of US commitment. Trump seems to be taking a lot of heat from his base, saying he is kow-towing to the McCain/Lindsey/neocon war hawk wing of the party.
Be interesting to see if he sees Syria as central to his legacy, or if he's more or less going to continue to play referee.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/0...ost-completely-destroyed-after-us-strike.html
I wish one day we could just stay out of the whole middle east and let them handle their own affairs. Too bad some in Syria can't take Assad out and end his miserable existence.
Did you guys ever watch that BBC Special "Human of Earth" or whatever it was called? There's this village in Africa, and they grow crops. Wheat IIRC. Anyhow they're right next to a protected park, and these monkeys (which are protected as well) come and raid their crops all the time.
They're not allowed to kill the monkeys, so the boys in the village have to run around from field to field chasing the monkeys away to save as much wheat as they can.
But the monkeys always steal some wheat, and even though they get chased off, they'll be back.
Basically that's the "war on terror."
They're not allowed to kill the monkeys, so the boys in the village have to run around from field to field chasing the monkeys away to save as much wheat as they can.
But the monkeys always steal some wheat, and even though they get chased off, they'll be back.
Basically that's the "war on terror."
I could be wrong, but I have a suspicion that after that raid in Yemen, he lost a lot of interest in making big decisions about military action. I think that threw him into the deep end of being Commander in Chief and he realized it's neither fun nor a game. Now he's much happier to ask Mattis what he thinks should be done.
We use the term "whack a mole" but that's the general gist. Except we're allowed to kill the monkeys.
No one can do everything. He's going to face choices same as every other President. President Bush's domestic agenda got seriously derailed by the GWOT (a guy who campaigned for 2 years on entitlement reform, did nothing to entitlements except add the prescription drug plan).
Does Trump want his wall and infrastructure plan? His tax cut? His balanced budget/business sense? Or does he want to fix Syria?
In general he's been introduced to Pandora's Box. I don't see how it was quite possible he could make his base happy, promising to focus domestically and not get embroiled in the Middle East, yet still eradicate ISIS in quick fashion.
You can't have both. But politicians rarely level with the folks.
Of course it wasn't possible. But it doesn't make the audience cheer to say that.
Anything credible as to whether there were Russian casualties at the base?
This is hands down the best post I've read about this subject on this thread.
As a person who has a lot of academic training in international relations (IR), I would say that ever since international terrorism became the dominant military challenge facing our country (post-9/11), our foreign policy has become as unfocused and scattered as the threat itself is. It is hard to build a series of solid objectives when a primary challenge is constantly shifting what it is doing.
As far as leadership goes, I am not and have never been convinced that matters of foreign policy should be something the public is 100% involved in at all times; read some of these comments! Plenty of people have no idea what is going on in the world, and foreign affairs are complex, messy, full of history and secrets, deal-making, etc., that requires professionals spending their lives engaged in it and studying it.
Finally, to sum up what we're doing right now, our president acted within his authority (the president is allowed to act unilaterally, to a limited degree, without going to congress, but that ability to act is a small window and isn't something that can be used regularly) based on news out of Syria that civilians had been gassed. Well, fine, but my concerns are as follows:
- I am no fan of Trump, I think he's horrible on a number of levels. A terrible person and bad, corrupt leader still has to act within the confines of his office, and he did, but my concern is the way he acts is simply reacting to things constantly, rather than thinking out a coherent foreign policy. Say what you want about both Bush 2 (blech) and Obama (I was a fan overall, but his foreign policy had some serious problems), but both of them at least articulated fairly coherent visions of how they wanted to engage with the world. I have NO idea what this guy is doing, in contrast.
- Now I also have no idea how Russia is going to react. They've backed Assad for a long time, and this was a direct attack on their ally. This is going to have some pretty far-reaching repercussions.
- This had almost nothing to do with Islamic terrorism, it was a strike against a dictator. This is a region of the world that already is very unstable. Acting in it is a very, very difficult thing to do.
By the way, we won't leave the middle east alone as long as there is a ton of oil there. That doesn't explain why we've done what we've done there over the last 17 years, but it does explain why every major power on the planet is so interested in the goings on there.
"Pentagon spokesman Captain Jeff Davis said in an official statement: "Russian forces were notified in advance of the strike using the established deconfliction line. U.S. military planners took precautions to minimize risk to Russian or Syrian personnel located at the airfield.""
The Russians, if they were smart, were in no real danger. I believe news reports out of Syria say only 7 Syrians died.
- Status
