TheAuthority Posted April 7, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted April 7, 2017 17 minutes ago, Jareth said: I do not like the Donald. But when you are in charge of the biggest army in the world then your "gestures" are mostly "actions'. And regardless of how left or how PC you find your own views, there is always a stick or a carrot - and Trump is all about the stick. It may not play well domestically but this guy has to behave on a world stage. I fully supported Obama, but he turned out to be an idealist. When Assad is being as ass-hole, we need blunt action, which sadly is something our country is not able to do, so USA, please act. I understand your sentiment. However "blunt action" sounds punitive to me. Unless you are going to kill or somehow make whoever's responsible suffer it's really just a token gesture or posturing. Unfortunately, removing the presumed villain Assad creates the problems that @il_serpente succinctly states above, in addition to the danger of starting a proxy war with Russia. My question really asks isn't the better course of action to address the humanitarian travesty of this situation? Provide safe haven for the millions of refugees and get aid to those still caught in the conflict. The press is stating that 50 tomahawks were fired tonight. 3 years ago they cost $1.6 million each. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 11 minutes ago, il_serpente said: It's easy to feel good about supporting something like this in principle after the gas attacks, but the fallout could turn out to be horrendous. Will it turn out to have been worth it? How do you even measure that? It's even easier to go full non combat and support a president who believes in finding political solutions. There comes a point when the liberal values are pointless. I fully support liberal values, but what happened in Syria, and it is not the first time, cannot stand, without reply. Fu*k Assad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 4 minutes ago, TheAuthority said: I understand your sentiment. However "blunt action" sounds punitive to me. Unless you are going to kill or somehow make whoever's responsible suffer it's really just a token gesture or posturing. Unfortunately, removing the presumed villain Assad creates the problems that @il_serpente succinctly states above, in addition to the danger of starting a proxy war with Russia. My question really asks isn't the better course of action to address the humanitarian travesty of this situation? Provide safe haven for the millions of refugees and get aid to those still caught in the conflict. The press is stating that 50 tomahawks were fired tonight. 3 years ago they cost $1.6 million each. I do respect your stance, but I am so through with the general fear of the western world taking action. Russia, Syria, China (not Tony), can enforce their position on the world, all they want, but when you feel, instinctively, as a powerless citizen that the violence and murder, and it is murder, of innocents is wrong, then you need to act. And you need to clear your mind. False news, alternative facts can go to hell. Trust your instincts, trust your anger. and f*ck Assad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 20 minutes ago, Jareth said: It's even easier to go full non combat and support a president who believes in finding political solutions. There comes a point when the liberal values are pointless. I fully support liberal values, but what happened in Syria, and it is not the first time, cannot stand, without reply. Fu*k Assad. Exactly this. The use of chemical weapons is legally prohibited by the entire international community. They've been used repeatedly in Syria and Iraq by IS and the Assad regime. Until last night there had been no cost to Assad for doing so. Russia and China blocked a resolution against the latest chemical attacks in the UNSC, meaning established international means of legal redress were not possible. According to reports the US targeted the airfield from which the gas attack was launched, not against innocent civilians and without first hitting air defense assets manned by Russians. Moscow was informed of the strike before it hit and you can bet great care was taken in selecting the target package to avoid Russian casualties. It comes down to a simple calculation, can rogue regimes get away with using chemical weapons against civilians or not? Putin, President Xi (who was having dinner with Trump as the strikes went in), Assad and others now have America's answer to that question. Trump is a muppet but not a puppet and last night he demonstrated western values still count for something - however inconsistently they are applied. Good job. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
il_serpente Posted April 7, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted April 7, 2017 1 hour ago, Jareth said: It's even easier to go full non combat and support a president who believes in finding political solutions. There comes a point when the liberal values are pointless. I fully support liberal values, but what happened in Syria, and it is not the first time, cannot stand, without reply. Fu*k Adessad. I'm not saying it was the wrong choice, just that it's easy to let your gut tell you it's a good thing in response to a very justifiable outrage that tends to temporarily suppress concerns about repercussions. I honestly don't know in the end if it will prove to have been a wise or unwise decision. I don't think many would argue that, viewed independently, it is wrong to punish Assad for this and send a message that such acts will not be tolerated. But the problem is that it cannot be viewed independently in the long term. There will be parallel developments that have the potential to be horrendous. We'll probably never know if this action will have prevented further gas attacks from Assad. We may well be able to get some idea of what effect it has on the refugee crisis and civilian suffering within the country if it is really the first step toward toppling Assad. If things get worse in those respects, at what point do you decide that it wasn't "worth it"? How bad can the unintended repercussions be of punishing and possibly preventing the repeat of an evil act before they outweigh the heinousness of that evil act? How can you even measure the relative awfulness of two very different kinds of awful and decide that one was less awful than the other? Be careful what you wish for.... On the other hand, if suffering decreases and the flow of refugees slows to a trickle and these effects are sustained, I'd expect few will see it as having been a mistake, and domestic and international political implications will end up being minimal as a result. I just fear that the outcome won't be this neat and tidy. I'd love to have my fears proven unfounded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 Looking around the various sites/Twitter, I think it says a lot about the mentality of these rabid supporters who tirelessly support him through bad policy decisions, stupid tweets, scandals; yet their line in the sand is bombing a country who gassed their own children. I mean, ffs. Not strictly decision related, but I do find it a tad disingenuous that Trump was trying to block all Syrian refugees, not long ago, and now he's calling their dead children beautiful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 9 hours ago, maqroll said: But a bad thing for the people. Why is removing the filibuster bad for 'the people'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amsterdam_Neil_D Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 2 hours ago, Jareth said: And you need to clear your mind. False news, alternative facts can go to hell. Trust your instincts, trust your anger. and f*ck Assad. Fair play to Trump. Impressed by this. Seemed a good response for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 9 minutes ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said: Fair play to Trump. Impressed by this. Seemed a good response for now. Agree. Now he has to follow it up on a humanitarian level because at the moment, his words look like crocodile tears. You cant admit there's a problem by bombing Syria then refuse to take any desperate refugees fleeing from these chemical attacks. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post jon_c Posted April 7, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted April 7, 2017 Wow, I'm actually impressed how much this has worked for Trump. He's been itching for an excuse to bomb somewhere for day one. Russian ally Assad duly obliges. And now people are actually going, "Yeah Trump!" When he unilaterally bombs another sovereign state, without going through international diplomacy (less so than the Iraq War that makes people call Tony Blair a war criminal now) or even his own parliament. Yes the chemical attacks were awful, but the continuing acts of ISIS in Syria are awful. There are currently wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Darfur, Nigeria, Libya, Yemen, South Sudan... I could go on. There are probably children dying horrible deaths all over the world in conflicts, do we expect Trump should bomb all these too? The world can only act through diplomacy, it isn't the best solution, but it prevents us all from being dragged into a worldwide conflict. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted April 7, 2017 Moderator Share Posted April 7, 2017 It's good for business Edwin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted April 7, 2017 Author Share Posted April 7, 2017 32 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: Why is removing the filibuster bad for 'the people'? The precedent the GOP is setting is bad for anyone invested in the political system. This "nuclear option" is about to be rammed through in the most cynical way possible. These assholes are making up the rules as they go, and it just compounds the impression that American democracy is weakening. This is the party that refused Judge Garland even a hearing, and they dragged it out over a year until they miraculously won the White House, and now when the Dems balk at the GOP pick, they rewrite the rules. When does it stop? The people lose because any semblance of common purpose across party lines is being shattered by the day. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_c Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 *oopps, I forgot to list Ukraine as conflict, but I think everyone's forgotten Crimea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amsterdam_Neil_D Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 Putin is furious. So 100% the correct thing to do by the US. Putin desired more dead people from chemicals I suppose. Not today **** face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 2 minutes ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said: Putin is furious. So 100% the correct thing to do by the US. Putin desired more dead people from chemicals I suppose. Not today **** face. His bluff has been called and where the rubber hits the road geopolitically Russia isn't in same league as the US. That's just been made very clear which is a little embarrassing for Mr Putin. It also complicates the narrative that Trump is Moscow's Manchurian Candidate. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted April 7, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted April 7, 2017 Or the Russians play a good part. Protect the American influence by throwing Trump a bone that won't change much in the grand scheme of things but may distract and confuse the narrative that threatened that influence. Or Trump has finally had some advisors break the spell a little. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted April 7, 2017 Author Share Posted April 7, 2017 I think Bannon getting booted off the NSC is a massive indication of Trump being reigned in somewhat. Not that Mattis and McMasters make me feel much better, but at least they have some grounding in established protocol. Removing Darth Bannon from that kind of access to military power is a big win for people who want civilization to live a while longer. That said, it looks like Donny Boy has his tail up. I like Adam Schiff, but he lacks a killer instinct. This Russia collusion probe needs a kick in the arse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted April 7, 2017 Author Share Posted April 7, 2017 5 minutes ago, Awol said: It also complicates the narrative that Trump is Moscow's Manchurian Candidate. Or does it provide Trump with a convenient break, therefore saving his own skin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 8 minutes ago, maqroll said: Or does it provide Trump with a convenient break, therefore saving his own skin? Either he's a dumbass or Machiavelli. You can't have it both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumerican Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 Does flat feet still stop men being enlisted ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts