From my understanding, the base that was targeted was the base that launched the chemical attack. In addition, that same base does not have a ton of resources, such as planes or personnel. The base isnt a huge target by any means, it doesn't have any reason to be other than symbolic. It's in a farm region, and very little chance of Russians being in the premises. All these things considered, I believe the attack was mostly just a symbolic gesture, a sort of, "don't bomb your own people" kind of statement and a little slap on the wrist. I don't believe it will have a lasting impact, truthfully.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How I like to win games:
Modern:
Grixis Shadow
Burn
Titanshift
Copycat (Given up currently, not entirely sure what it needs)
One very simple question tonight: if Trump is a Russian puppet, why is he actively interfering in Russian operations in Syria?
Matter of fact, forget about the puppet claim. Let's say that he simply feels indebted to Putin, which is a much more conservative and charitable reading of the mainstream media coverage. How does this behavior fit in with that?
Quote from buwalda98 »
From my understanding, the base that was targeted was the base that launched the chemical attack. In addition, that same base does not have a ton of resources, such as planes or personnel. The base isnt a huge target by any means, it doesn't have any reason to be other than symbolic. It's in a farm region, and very little chance of Russians being in the premises. All these things considered, I believe the attack was mostly just a symbolic gesture, a sort of, "don't bomb your own people" kind of statement and a little slap on the wrist. I don't believe it will have a lasting impact, truthfully.
Let's hope that's all that becomes of this. While I don't support it, if it gives Assad pause the next time he's considering using chemical weapons against civilians then that's a good end. It may be more of a symbolic measure, but it's a pretty stern symbol if that's all it is, and to me at least, it does signal that the diplomatic situation with Russia is still going to be a difficult one over the next four years.
One very simple question tonight: if Trump is a Russian puppet, why is he actively interfering in Russian operations in Syria?
Matter of fact, forget about the puppet claim. Let's say that he simply feels indebted to Putin, which is a much more conservative and charitable reading of the mainstream media coverage. How does this behavior fit in with that?
It appears that he was nice enough to let them know that the missiles were comming. Presumably to avoid an international incident.
And this is just a single attack against 1 airbase. It has done sod all to actively hinder anyones air operations in the area. IF he had been serious about doing something halfway useful he would have sent a single massive strike and completely obliterated Syria's airpower and air defenses.
Instead we have had a half-hearted strike launched in response to an atrrocity that won't actually prevent Assad from doing the same thing in the future. This is after all not the first time Assad has used Chemcial weapons against his own people and unless the reprisals are instant and crippling it is not going to be the last. And unless we are incredibly careful it looks like we are going to get dragged into an escalating series of Tit for Tat attacks and retaliations that won't actually do anything useful to fix the situation.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
One very simple question tonight: if Trump is a Russian puppet, why is he actively interfering in Russian operations in Syria?
Matter of fact, forget about the puppet claim. Let's say that he simply feels indebted to Putin, which is a much more conservative and charitable reading of the mainstream media coverage. How does this behavior fit in with that?
It appears that he was nice enough to let them know that the missiles were comming. Presumably to avoid an international incident.
Which I suppose is something he might do to lessen the blown with the Russians but it's also the sensible thing to do and they're still going to be angry, anyway.
And this is just a single attack against 1 airbase. It has done sod all to actively hinder anyones air operations in the area. IF he had been serious about doing something halfway useful he would have sent a single massive strike and completely obliterated Syria's airpower and air defenses.
He can't do that legally. I mean, I appreciate all the reasonable critiques of his decisions but he can't actually do that. He was stretching the limits just by doing what he did here.
In any event, is there anyone (other than Syrian rebels) that actually wants to see that happen right now?
Instead we have had a half-hearted strike launched in response to an atrrocity that won't actually prevent Assad from doing the same thing in the future. This is after all not the first time Assad has used Chemcial weapons against his own people and unless the reprisals are instant and crippling it is not going to be the last. And unless we are incredibly careful it looks like we are going to get dragged into an escalating series of Tit for Tat attacks and retaliations that won't actually do anything useful to fix the situation.
The question, it seems to me, is not whether to do this or whether do something more impactful. It's whether to do this or do something less impactful. He chose the most impactful action in front of him and it's one that puts him at a significant political risk because it's only borderline legal to begin with.
I have to say that I'm impressed with this action. It showed conviction and decisiveness but it was nonetheless restrained and diplomatic. Not only did he warn the relevant parties in advance, he also apparently consulted with allies like the U.K., Australia and Israel (possibly others) before this happened. We probably would have expected that from Obama but as you know, the bar has been lowered.
Quote from MinaHarcourt »
The chemical attack was not one. There is plenty of proof of that online. Like one guy reporting on the attack a day early. Or the white helmets, funded by George Soros and allied to Al-something, employing the same actors again. Or the white helmets not wearing any protective clothing when sarin adheres to everything it touches and minute traces still kill.
George Soros and the U.N. faked a chemical attack in Syria to start a war between Russia and the States?
By the by, what is it with the Russians and escaping culpability for everything?
He can't do that legally. I mean, I appreciate all the reasonable critiques of his decisions but he can't actually do that. He was stretching the limits just by doing what he did here.
...no, he wasn't. This was the "minimum use of force" approach. I'd bet dollars to donuts his advisors gave him a menu of options that got way more explosive.
The question, it seems to me, is not whether to do this or whether do something more impactful. It's whether to do this or do something less impactful. He chose the most impactful action in front of him and it's one that puts him at a significant political risk because it's only borderline legal to begin with.
This is almost exactly the reverse of the truth. He chose the action that had the smallest actual impact on the ground while still generating the headline "TRUMP ORDERS MISSILE STRIKE IN SYRIA" and thus appearing tough to please his base. And yes, this is an area the president should be tough. Obama should have given this order years ago. I'm cautiously optimistic that it happened. But calling it a political risk? Not even close.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The question, it seems to me, is not whether to do this or whether do something more impactful. It's whether to do this or do something less impactful. He chose the most impactful action in front of him and it's one that puts him at a significant political risk because it's only borderline legal to begin with.
Well yes he could have done something less impactful. He could have done what he said Obama should have done back when this started. Which was to stay at home and not get involved.
But you know he has broken that red line of his so we should hope that he might do something useful. But I guess with the precedent set by Muslim ban and talk of the boarder wall I guess that would be to much to ask for.
And Spirit is correct. We should have gone in along time ago after Assad used his chemical weapons the first time. Unfortunately we the British bottled it and didn't vote to extend airstrikes into Syria and Obamaa did not want to act unilateraly.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
So I wonder...are you guys all of the opinion that Assad should be deposed?
Well he has committed the similar crimes to Slobodan Milošević and he ended up in the Hague.
So yes Assad should have been deposed the first time used Chemical weapons on his own populace. Now he has done it a second time and despite what Ljoss seems to think is an effective response to this use of chemical weapons, he has continued to use his airforce against his own population fairly indescriminately yes he should be removed.
But insrtead of doing a half arsed job of it like we did in Iraq this most recent time we have to accept that it is ging to be a long term job, and needs to be done in conjunction with knocking out ISIS in Iraq.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
Most of you are talking about the chemical attack as if there's no doubt it actually happened. But there's no convincing proof, and actually there was no proof of a chemical attack by the regime forces the last time. Activists' reports sadly can't be regarded as proof, as there are a lot of contradictions. Moreover, if the base was the one that the chemical attack came from, the bombardment would have trigger another chemical outburst, but it didn't, and the syrians even were able to use the base today as if there was no attack at all.
There is no definitive proof that the Assad did not use the chlorine, I admit, but would it really be in his interest? It would contribute nothing to Syrian army's positions, but would greatly strenghten the western bias against the regime. And it would put lives of millions of syrians in danger. There's nothing to gain and plenty to lose for Assad, I understand that you actively dislike him, but I believe everyone should understand he's not stupid and not crazy.
Some of you writing that the bar has lowered, but this was actually a surprisingly good action, please consider if maybe that shift was the real point of the attack on Syria.
Attachment is too tiny to read. And appears to be a screenshot of a 4chan thread? I would take that with a few bags of salt.
Simply because it's on 4chan?
Absolutely. The phrase "take ______ with a grain of salt" is a recommendation to look at something skeptically. 4chan is a highly unreliable source, and therefore you should be wary of taking anything you read there at face value. You'll notice I didn't say to dismiss it out of hand.
Also, none of that addresses the point that the image you posted is too small to read, regardless of its content.
M
Moreover, if the base was the one that the chemical attack came from, the bombardment would have trigger another chemical outburst, but it didn't, and the syrians even were able to use the base today as if there was no attack at all.
That would be because as Spirit has suggested the attack launched by Trump was not designed to do anything useful. Rather it lets him jump up and down and say look at me I'm attacking some one that drops chemical weapons on his own people. Aren't I a nice guy.
As for not unleashing clouds of chemicals they very specifically avoided dropping a bomb on anything that looked like it might be capable of holding chemical weapons to reduce collateral damage to an absolute minimum.
If the Syrians have already been able to repair the runway enough to fly jets off it, that just underlines how stupid and pointless Trumps strike was.
But instead of doing a half arsed job of it like we did in Iraq this most recent time we have to accept that it is ging to be a long term job, and needs to be done in conjunction with knocking out ISIS in Iraq.
I find that certain recent Republican administrations want to have a large military but then seemingly don't know how to effectively utilize a large military. It's rather strange. And concerning when some of my friends are out in the field being shot at by ISIS. Maybe the missile strike is a good sign though, because it means that Trump is looking out at world problems instead of looking in at non-issues.
He can't do that legally. I mean, I appreciate all the reasonable critiques of his decisions but he can't actually do that. He was stretching the limits just by doing what he did here.
...no, he wasn't. This was the "minimum use of force" approach. I'd bet dollars to donuts his advisors gave him a menu of options that got way more explosive.
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. He's POTUS, not King. He can't just order a complete bombardment of the state of Syria on a whim. Not to mention that the Russians are there as well.
If Hillary Clinton believes POTUS has the authority to launch a massive campaign against another state on his/her own say so then 1) #wrong and 2) I guess that's another reason to be glad she isn't POTUS. I don't believe that she thinks that, though.
The question, it seems to me, is not whether to do this or whether do something more impactful. It's whether to do this or do something less impactful. He chose the most impactful action in front of him and it's one that puts him at a significant political risk because it's only borderline legal to begin with.
This is almost exactly the reverse of the truth. He chose the action that had the smallest actual impact on the ground while still generating the headline "TRUMP ORDERS MISSILE STRIKE IN SYRIA" and thus appearing tough to please his base. And yes, this is an area the president should be tough. Obama should have given this order years ago. I'm cautiously optimistic that it happened. But calling it a political risk? Not even close.
It's a brave move for a few reasons.
1) Questionable legality and opposition by a few lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.
He can't do that legally. I mean, I appreciate all the reasonable critiques of his decisions but he can't actually do that. He was stretching the limits just by doing what he did here.
...no, he wasn't. This was the "minimum use of force" approach. I'd bet dollars to donuts his advisors gave him a menu of options that got way more explosive.
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. He's POTUS, not King. He can't just order a complete bombardment of the state of Syria on a whim. Not to mention that the Russians are there as well.
Well acutally it looks like he can. He just has to tell congress why he did it within 48 hours and pull the troops out after 60 days if Congress doesn't grant an extension.
3) Opposition by anti-war elements on both sides of the aisle - even fervent supporters that are sympathetic to Russia.
Ljoss we aren't attacking him for carrying out the attack. We are attacking him because the method he choose is absolutely pointless and does nothing to help anyone. All this is, is a very very expensive Wag the dog. He has done the bare minimum neccessary to get some hopefully positive headlines in an attempt distract people from all the things that are going wrong at home with his domestic plans.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
Listen. Deposing Assad is going to make the middle east even worse. In none of those countries life was a cakewalk under these strong men, but certainly a relative peace is better than complete bedlam?
So instead we should idly stand by whilst someone flagrantly breaks international law and murders their own population using some of the most horrific weapons ever created?
I'm reminded of a quote by Burke. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
That applies to what is happening both in Iraq and Syria. What is needed is enough political will for the US, UK and other members of Nato amongst others to form a coaliton and do what is neccessary in Syria and then for the politicians to get the hell out the way so the men on the ground can run it as needed, for as long as it takes.
The best thing that happened in Iraq after the second invasion was the Surge. Where afterwards the US was able to somewhat stabilise the country. The worst thing to happen was those troops being pulled out with out the Iraqi's having sufficient forces to meet the shortfall, coupled with an administration that seemed to descriminate against a segment of the population that previously had a favoured position.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
A) No proof Assaud was responsible and I have seen a few reasons to doubt he was.
B) Trump used to have stock in the company that makes the missiles. The company made billions of dollars from that attack. Each missle cost comething like $700k to $1.2M
C) I'm starting to really wonder about the conspiracy theory that this could be a planned move by Russia/Putin to put the Russia/Trump investigations to rest.
So instead we should idly stand by whilst someone flagrantly breaks international law and murders their own population using some of the most horrific weapons ever created?
One word missing from your post is allegedly. It looks like a really tough case of the trolley problem, do you really believe it's right to kill a number of people if it MAYBE would help to save a bigger number of people? Or you know, it could actually endanger lots of syrians as there are serious concerns of religious cleansing that might start in Syria in case of Assad leaving right now. The alawites, the druze, the christians, the shia etc.
A) No proof Assaud was responsible and I have seen a few reasons to doubt he was.
The casualty pattern is one that is only consistent with an attack launched by aircraft. Assad is the only person in the area that has aircraft and used chemical weapons before. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that it was Assad again this time. Regardless of what spin the conspiracy theorists and Russians want to put on it.
@Mina: If you notice I said do what was neccessary in Iraq and Syria. That is get rid of both Isis as we are doing in Iraq and get Assad out of Syria and in front of the Hague. Once that has happened we need to get stuck into the longterm process of rebuilding a society for all the Syrians.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
That is get rid of both Isis as we are doing in Iraq and get Assad out of Syria and in front of the Hague.
As in a game of Magic, politics requires proper sequencing. Assad is probably guilty of war crimes (though probably to a lesser extent that you would like to believe), and it's a must to launch a thorough investigation. As a result of that, he will end up in front of the Hague tribunal. But if you depose of his rule now, especially if it is by brute force, that will give ISIS a possibility to regain all of the lost ground and even spread their positions further. Which in turn will strengthen them in Iraq.
A) No proof Assaud was responsible and I have seen a few reasons to doubt he was.
The casualty pattern is one that is only consistent with an attack launched by aircraft. Assad is the only person in the area that has aircraft and used chemical weapons before. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that it was Assad again this time. Regardless of what spin the conspiracy theorists and Russians want to put on it.
I'm sorry but I still think it's super sketchy. IF Assaud even used chemical weapons before (which is also not proven) he would have only used them against the rebels. He wouldn't just attack his own people for no reason. Believe it or not he isn't a Tyrant. His country was relatively peaceful before the civil war started. He's pretty good to his supporters and it makes no sense to gas them when he has the rebels on the run. What's the motive?
A) No proof Assaud was responsible and I have seen a few reasons to doubt he was.
The casualty pattern is one that is only consistent with an attack launched by aircraft. Assad is the only person in the area that has aircraft and used chemical weapons before. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that it was Assad again this time. Regardless of what spin the conspiracy theorists and Russians want to put on it.
I'm sorry but I still think it's super sketchy.
If it wasn't him who else has the capability to drop chemical weapons from aircraft. Just having a quick look round the forces involved in the area it no one. Either because they are rebels and whilst they may have chemical weapons they can't drop stuff from aircraft or they can drop stuff from aircraft but don't have chemical weapons.
Much as you might think it is sketchy it is really a rather simple venn diagram and the only person who can fulfil both requirements of having airpower and chemical weapons in the region is Assad.
IF Assaud even used chemical weapons before (which is also not proven) he would have only used them against the rebels. He wouldn't just attack his own people for no reason.
He isn't, he is just using it on people who have the misfortune to living in his country and not part of one of his cliques
Believe it or not he isn't a Tyrant.
In this you are quite correct he most closely resembles a classical Despot, which was some elected to have pretty much abosolute power. The elections that put him in power were a sham, he ran unopposed.
His country was relatively peaceful before the civil war started. He's pretty good to his supporters and it makes no sense to gas them when he has the rebels on the run. What's the motive?
He was good for the people that supported him. If you didn't fall into his cliques not so much. Remember this started with peacful protests requesting proper elections and the release of political prisoners. Something Assad was not willing to contenance because he might lose.
So he attempted to send in the army to break it up but some of the army refused and defected.
Also remember that he fairly reguarly uses barrel bombs and he does not really care where those things end up and despite what you feel he has gotten away with using chemical weapons before, from his perspective why wouldn't he use them again.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
Much as you might think it is sketchy it is really a rather simple venn diagram and the only person who can fulfil both requirements of having airpower and chemical weapons in the region is Assad.
Really? I mean I'm certainly no expert but I feel like there are a few other countries that have that technology and fund/ supply weapons to the rebels. This could have been a retaliation since Assaud had the rebels on the run. It sure seemed to work out for them in the end.
He isn't, he is just using it on people who have the misfortune to living in his country and not part of one of his cliques
Still not buying it. I don't think he just gasses people that aren't opposing him just because they aren't a part of the cool kids club.
Also remember that he fairly reguarly uses barrel bombs and he does not really care where those things end up and despite what you feel he has gotten away with using chemical weapons before, from his perspective why wouldn't he use them again.
Because he was winning. Usually you only attack those who are actively against you. I think most of the people left in the country are just tired and probably weren't going to actively oppose him, why attack them?
He was good for the people that supported him. If you didn't fall into his cliques not so much. Remember this started with peacful protests requesting proper elections and the release of political prisoners. Something Assad was not willing to contenance because he might lose.
So he attempted to send in the army to break it up but some of the army refused and defected.
The only people who "didn't fall into his cliques" by the time the crisis started, if I'm not mistaken, were the sunni muslims who believed that if they form a majority of the population, they should have the power: a sunni president, a sunni government, a sunni head judge and so on. The same kind of people who support Hamas in Gaza or Mohammad Morsi in Egypt. The way the protests were handled indeed was a shame and a brutality, but not something unseen in the region. As harsh as it may sound, the Middle East is not like Europe and America now. How many peaceful protesters were murdered, when the egyptian police cracked down on the Rabia al Adawiya demonstrations? How many people died during the Moqtada As-Sadr's suuporters' protests in Baghdad? What about the last year's events in Algeria? How many democracy advocates, journalists and kurdish activists are imprisoned and tortured in Turkey after the failed coup?
But the syrian security forces encountered armed resistance from the first moments. Look up the events that happened in Jisr al-Shughour in the June of 2011, where the so-called "peaceful democratic protesters" killed more than a hundred members of the security personnel. It takes a lot to organize such an operation, this isn't something that can happen accidentally. The regime's response was indeed brutal and it affected a lot of people who weren't guilty. But from then scores of people joined the armed oppositions for reasons close to vendetta, which is understandable, but not something it would be right to support by anyone anywhere.
Take a look at the countries, where the people indeed fight an oppressive autocratic leader. Look at the protests in Sanaa against Al-Saleh or the Tahrir square events against Mubarak (or later Morsi), look at Moscow, where thousands of people defy blackmail and harassment to express their outrage at the leader. Then look at Damascus, where almost everyone carries Assad's portrait. And notice that at first most of the opposition resided in the poor peripheral cities like Homs or Hamaa. You can still argue that Assad is only supported by his cliques. But it looks like those so-called cliques form quite a chunk of the total population.
The US recently launched missile strikes on a military base in Syria.
Thoughts?
Modern:
Grixis Shadow
Burn
Titanshift
Copycat (Given up currently, not entirely sure what it needs)
Legacy:
Burn
B/R Reanimator (slowly building
EDH:
Sedris Control/Reanimation
Matter of fact, forget about the puppet claim. Let's say that he simply feels indebted to Putin, which is a much more conservative and charitable reading of the mainstream media coverage. How does this behavior fit in with that?
Let's hope that's all that becomes of this. While I don't support it, if it gives Assad pause the next time he's considering using chemical weapons against civilians then that's a good end. It may be more of a symbolic measure, but it's a pretty stern symbol if that's all it is, and to me at least, it does signal that the diplomatic situation with Russia is still going to be a difficult one over the next four years.
It appears that he was nice enough to let them know that the missiles were comming. Presumably to avoid an international incident.
And this is just a single attack against 1 airbase. It has done sod all to actively hinder anyones air operations in the area. IF he had been serious about doing something halfway useful he would have sent a single massive strike and completely obliterated Syria's airpower and air defenses.
Instead we have had a half-hearted strike launched in response to an atrrocity that won't actually prevent Assad from doing the same thing in the future. This is after all not the first time Assad has used Chemcial weapons against his own people and unless the reprisals are instant and crippling it is not going to be the last. And unless we are incredibly careful it looks like we are going to get dragged into an escalating series of Tit for Tat attacks and retaliations that won't actually do anything useful to fix the situation.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Which I suppose is something he might do to lessen the blown with the Russians but it's also the sensible thing to do and they're still going to be angry, anyway.
He can't do that legally. I mean, I appreciate all the reasonable critiques of his decisions but he can't actually do that. He was stretching the limits just by doing what he did here.
In any event, is there anyone (other than Syrian rebels) that actually wants to see that happen right now?
The question, it seems to me, is not whether to do this or whether do something more impactful. It's whether to do this or do something less impactful. He chose the most impactful action in front of him and it's one that puts him at a significant political risk because it's only borderline legal to begin with.
I have to say that I'm impressed with this action. It showed conviction and decisiveness but it was nonetheless restrained and diplomatic. Not only did he warn the relevant parties in advance, he also apparently consulted with allies like the U.K., Australia and Israel (possibly others) before this happened. We probably would have expected that from Obama but as you know, the bar has been lowered.
George Soros and the U.N. faked a chemical attack in Syria to start a war between Russia and the States?
By the by, what is it with the Russians and escaping culpability for everything?
Hillary Rodham Clinton.
This is almost exactly the reverse of the truth. He chose the action that had the smallest actual impact on the ground while still generating the headline "TRUMP ORDERS MISSILE STRIKE IN SYRIA" and thus appearing tough to please his base. And yes, this is an area the president should be tough. Obama should have given this order years ago. I'm cautiously optimistic that it happened. But calling it a political risk? Not even close.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Well yes he could have done something less impactful. He could have done what he said Obama should have done back when this started. Which was to stay at home and not get involved.
But you know he has broken that red line of his so we should hope that he might do something useful. But I guess with the precedent set by Muslim ban and talk of the boarder wall I guess that would be to much to ask for.
And Spirit is correct. We should have gone in along time ago after Assad used his chemical weapons the first time. Unfortunately we the British bottled it and didn't vote to extend airstrikes into Syria and Obamaa did not want to act unilateraly.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
Well he has committed the similar crimes to Slobodan Milošević and he ended up in the Hague.
So yes Assad should have been deposed the first time used Chemical weapons on his own populace. Now he has done it a second time and despite what Ljoss seems to think is an effective response to this use of chemical weapons, he has continued to use his airforce against his own population fairly indescriminately yes he should be removed.
But insrtead of doing a half arsed job of it like we did in Iraq this most recent time we have to accept that it is ging to be a long term job, and needs to be done in conjunction with knocking out ISIS in Iraq.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
There is no definitive proof that the Assad did not use the chlorine, I admit, but would it really be in his interest? It would contribute nothing to Syrian army's positions, but would greatly strenghten the western bias against the regime. And it would put lives of millions of syrians in danger. There's nothing to gain and plenty to lose for Assad, I understand that you actively dislike him, but I believe everyone should understand he's not stupid and not crazy.
Some of you writing that the bar has lowered, but this was actually a surprisingly good action, please consider if maybe that shift was the real point of the attack on Syria.
Visit my best/worst cards by collector's number thread!
Stardust Siggies! Wonderful graphics:D
Also, none of that addresses the point that the image you posted is too small to read, regardless of its content.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
That would be because as Spirit has suggested the attack launched by Trump was not designed to do anything useful. Rather it lets him jump up and down and say look at me I'm attacking some one that drops chemical weapons on his own people. Aren't I a nice guy.
As for not unleashing clouds of chemicals they very specifically avoided dropping a bomb on anything that looked like it might be capable of holding chemical weapons to reduce collateral damage to an absolute minimum.
If the Syrians have already been able to repair the runway enough to fly jets off it, that just underlines how stupid and pointless Trumps strike was.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
I find that certain recent Republican administrations want to have a large military but then seemingly don't know how to effectively utilize a large military. It's rather strange. And concerning when some of my friends are out in the field being shot at by ISIS. Maybe the missile strike is a good sign though, because it means that Trump is looking out at world problems instead of looking in at non-issues.
Open Link in New Tab
But yeah...
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. He's POTUS, not King. He can't just order a complete bombardment of the state of Syria on a whim. Not to mention that the Russians are there as well.
If Hillary Clinton believes POTUS has the authority to launch a massive campaign against another state on his/her own say so then 1) #wrong and 2) I guess that's another reason to be glad she isn't POTUS. I don't believe that she thinks that, though.
It's a brave move for a few reasons.
1) Questionable legality and opposition by a few lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.
2) Opens him up to criticism for flip-flopping on Syria.
3) Opposition by anti-war elements on both sides of the aisle - even fervent supporters that are sympathetic to Russia.
Well acutally it looks like he can. He just has to tell congress why he did it within 48 hours and pull the troops out after 60 days if Congress doesn't grant an extension.
Ljoss we aren't attacking him for carrying out the attack. We are attacking him because the method he choose is absolutely pointless and does nothing to help anyone. All this is, is a very very expensive Wag the dog. He has done the bare minimum neccessary to get some hopefully positive headlines in an attempt distract people from all the things that are going wrong at home with his domestic plans.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
So instead we should idly stand by whilst someone flagrantly breaks international law and murders their own population using some of the most horrific weapons ever created?
I'm reminded of a quote by Burke. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
That applies to what is happening both in Iraq and Syria. What is needed is enough political will for the US, UK and other members of Nato amongst others to form a coaliton and do what is neccessary in Syria and then for the politicians to get the hell out the way so the men on the ground can run it as needed, for as long as it takes.
The best thing that happened in Iraq after the second invasion was the Surge. Where afterwards the US was able to somewhat stabilise the country. The worst thing to happen was those troops being pulled out with out the Iraqi's having sufficient forces to meet the shortfall, coupled with an administration that seemed to descriminate against a segment of the population that previously had a favoured position.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
A) No proof Assaud was responsible and I have seen a few reasons to doubt he was.
B) Trump used to have stock in the company that makes the missiles. The company made billions of dollars from that attack. Each missle cost comething like $700k to $1.2M
C) I'm starting to really wonder about the conspiracy theory that this could be a planned move by Russia/Putin to put the Russia/Trump investigations to rest.
BChainer, Dementia Master(Big Mana/Reanimator)
BRRakdos, The Showstopper (Mass Life Loss/Ramp)
BUThe Scarab God (Zombie Tribal/Control)
BWKarlov of the Ghost Council (Life Gain)
BGJarad, Golgari Lich Lord (Stompy/Dredge)
BRGProssh, Skyraider of Kher (Tokens/Non-infinite Combo)
One word missing from your post is allegedly. It looks like a really tough case of the trolley problem, do you really believe it's right to kill a number of people if it MAYBE would help to save a bigger number of people? Or you know, it could actually endanger lots of syrians as there are serious concerns of religious cleansing that might start in Syria in case of Assad leaving right now. The alawites, the druze, the christians, the shia etc.
Visit my best/worst cards by collector's number thread!
Stardust Siggies! Wonderful graphics:D
The casualty pattern is one that is only consistent with an attack launched by aircraft. Assad is the only person in the area that has aircraft and used chemical weapons before. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that it was Assad again this time. Regardless of what spin the conspiracy theorists and Russians want to put on it.
@Mina: If you notice I said do what was neccessary in Iraq and Syria. That is get rid of both Isis as we are doing in Iraq and get Assad out of Syria and in front of the Hague. Once that has happened we need to get stuck into the longterm process of rebuilding a society for all the Syrians.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
Which was never proven in the first place.
As in a game of Magic, politics requires proper sequencing. Assad is probably guilty of war crimes (though probably to a lesser extent that you would like to believe), and it's a must to launch a thorough investigation. As a result of that, he will end up in front of the Hague tribunal. But if you depose of his rule now, especially if it is by brute force, that will give ISIS a possibility to regain all of the lost ground and even spread their positions further. Which in turn will strengthen them in Iraq.
Visit my best/worst cards by collector's number thread!
Stardust Siggies! Wonderful graphics:D
BChainer, Dementia Master(Big Mana/Reanimator)
BRRakdos, The Showstopper (Mass Life Loss/Ramp)
BUThe Scarab God (Zombie Tribal/Control)
BWKarlov of the Ghost Council (Life Gain)
BGJarad, Golgari Lich Lord (Stompy/Dredge)
BRGProssh, Skyraider of Kher (Tokens/Non-infinite Combo)
If it wasn't him who else has the capability to drop chemical weapons from aircraft. Just having a quick look round the forces involved in the area it no one. Either because they are rebels and whilst they may have chemical weapons they can't drop stuff from aircraft or they can drop stuff from aircraft but don't have chemical weapons.
Much as you might think it is sketchy it is really a rather simple venn diagram and the only person who can fulfil both requirements of having airpower and chemical weapons in the region is Assad.
He isn't, he is just using it on people who have the misfortune to living in his country and not part of one of his cliques
In this you are quite correct he most closely resembles a classical Despot, which was some elected to have pretty much abosolute power. The elections that put him in power were a sham, he ran unopposed.
He was good for the people that supported him. If you didn't fall into his cliques not so much. Remember this started with peacful protests requesting proper elections and the release of political prisoners. Something Assad was not willing to contenance because he might lose.
So he attempted to send in the army to break it up but some of the army refused and defected.
Also remember that he fairly reguarly uses barrel bombs and he does not really care where those things end up and despite what you feel he has gotten away with using chemical weapons before, from his perspective why wouldn't he use them again.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
Still not buying it. I don't think he just gasses people that aren't opposing him just because they aren't a part of the cool kids club.
Because he was winning. Usually you only attack those who are actively against you. I think most of the people left in the country are just tired and probably weren't going to actively oppose him, why attack them?
BChainer, Dementia Master(Big Mana/Reanimator)
BRRakdos, The Showstopper (Mass Life Loss/Ramp)
BUThe Scarab God (Zombie Tribal/Control)
BWKarlov of the Ghost Council (Life Gain)
BGJarad, Golgari Lich Lord (Stompy/Dredge)
BRGProssh, Skyraider of Kher (Tokens/Non-infinite Combo)
Visit my best/worst cards by collector's number thread!
Stardust Siggies! Wonderful graphics:D
The only people who "didn't fall into his cliques" by the time the crisis started, if I'm not mistaken, were the sunni muslims who believed that if they form a majority of the population, they should have the power: a sunni president, a sunni government, a sunni head judge and so on. The same kind of people who support Hamas in Gaza or Mohammad Morsi in Egypt. The way the protests were handled indeed was a shame and a brutality, but not something unseen in the region. As harsh as it may sound, the Middle East is not like Europe and America now. How many peaceful protesters were murdered, when the egyptian police cracked down on the Rabia al Adawiya demonstrations? How many people died during the Moqtada As-Sadr's suuporters' protests in Baghdad? What about the last year's events in Algeria? How many democracy advocates, journalists and kurdish activists are imprisoned and tortured in Turkey after the failed coup?
But the syrian security forces encountered armed resistance from the first moments. Look up the events that happened in Jisr al-Shughour in the June of 2011, where the so-called "peaceful democratic protesters" killed more than a hundred members of the security personnel. It takes a lot to organize such an operation, this isn't something that can happen accidentally. The regime's response was indeed brutal and it affected a lot of people who weren't guilty. But from then scores of people joined the armed oppositions for reasons close to vendetta, which is understandable, but not something it would be right to support by anyone anywhere.
Take a look at the countries, where the people indeed fight an oppressive autocratic leader. Look at the protests in Sanaa against Al-Saleh or the Tahrir square events against Mubarak (or later Morsi), look at Moscow, where thousands of people defy blackmail and harassment to express their outrage at the leader. Then look at Damascus, where almost everyone carries Assad's portrait. And notice that at first most of the opposition resided in the poor peripheral cities like Homs or Hamaa. You can still argue that Assad is only supported by his cliques. But it looks like those so-called cliques form quite a chunk of the total population.
Visit my best/worst cards by collector's number thread!
Stardust Siggies! Wonderful graphics:D