| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The US just fired nearly 60 Tomahawk missiles into Syria. Russia vows to shoot down any coalition aircraft that crosses Syrian airspace.
SMFH.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pan you realize that there is one Commander in Chief. The President is only required to notify congress under the War Powers act when he deploys
ground forces after 45 days. I 'm sure he notified the bi g 4 Speaker of he house, House and Senate Minority Leaders Senate Majority Leader.
Notify not ask permission.
Syria needs to be stomped flat for using chemical weapons any country that uses chemical weapons needs to fear the response of the US we have forces on the ground near Raqua. Pan you realize what our policy is if Chemical weapons are used on our troops is? We hit them with tactical Nuclear weapons. That has been US policy since the Cold War.
Hopefully Assad will come to his senses and the situation will not escalate and he step back.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're joking, right?
We went through this b**~$&&# once with Iraq - everything happening in Syria now is a DIRECT CONSEQUENCE of American arrogance and warmongering.
YOU need to come to your senses. "Stomping Syria flat" will do NOTHING good...except for ISIL, who could wish for nothing better.
If everyone continues to think the way you presently are, it will be nuclear war.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is probably going to surprise a few folks, but...good. Chemical weapons need to be an absolute no-no. I actually wish Obama had done this last time around.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Have we learned NOTHING from the past 20 years (let alone the previous 100)??? They're not going to be cowed into being obedient little children or any such thing, and they're not going to take one word of our "moral appeals" seriously as long as we're sitting here with the world's largest nuclear AND "regular" military arsenal. Learn unabridged American history. We have no moral authority - we came into some after World War II, and it was indeed a glorious moment, but we squandered it almost immediately.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I don't see 60 Tomahawk missiles as a moral appeal. YMMV.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I don't see 60 Tomahawk missiles as a moral appeal. YMMV.
Okay, I'm with you on that one, but you were talking about "chemical weapons need to be an absolute no-no." This will do less than nothing toward that end. It doesn't matter what kind of bombs you use, when somebody bombs your country and tries to push you around, the LAST thing you're going to want to do is surrender your best weapons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The use of the gas by Assad was fishy then and its fishy now.
NYT Retreats on 2013 Syria-Sarin Claims
Cui bono?
Who benefits from the use of nerve gas? Does Assad? Why use it now when Trump appears to be friendly or at least neutral towards Assad? Chemical weapons generally rile people (and Governments) up so why use them when you have your foes on the run and the US not taking a hardline Assad must go stance?
Certainly factions that wish to wage perpetual war benefit. That much is clear...
I find it interesting that Chemical Weapons rile people up but regular old bombs that kill people don't seem to. Is gassing people that much more horrific than incinerating them, I would say no both are morally reprehensible. Both kill children and babies.
Somehow civilian lives in Syria become more valuable then let's say those in Yemen when the deaths in Syria can be used to push a particular agenda. This is what I was afraid of from Trump, tap him on the knee and he would jerk before the facts are fully vetted...
Certainly if Assad used these weapons then I would agree, some action has to take place but if he is not the responsible party then as I'm Hiding In Your Closet stated above, we have Iraq circa 2003 all over again and this time a Nuclear Power has troops there on the ground!
One more thing, if chemical weapons are bad, isn't depleted uranium just as bad if not worse? More depleted uranium.
I get that collateral damage is a thing everyone just accepts about war, even wars that are of less than dubious purpose... but when you drop barrels of sarin gas on people you are TRYING to rack up the civilian body count in the most horrific way possible.
Bombing the airport was a mild response if any. Hopefully the warning shot will be enough.
It's not about whether they like or don't like us telling them what to do, our moral authority, or whether we're hypocrites. It is about altering the calculus so that chemical weapons aren't worth using by any sane person, ever.
The penalty for using chemical weapons on civilians needs to be sharp, immediate and absolute. And if they do it again, the retaliation should be worse. Far worse. Meanwhile, al-Assad needs to go, period. And when he does, the world needs to know that gassing his own people was why.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The bombing will continue until morale improves!
Tomahawk missile
Manufacturer Raytheon/McDonnell Douglas
Unit cost US $1.59m
$1.59m X 59= $93,000,000
The morale at Raytheon is improving rapidly!
|
Sensible Obama doing this and leading the UK-France coalition under UN approval in 2013 would have been great
This is nothing like it
I hope this will result in something positive for the Syrian people but I am very worried when a man known for his whimsical bouts of aggressivity and with nuclear weapons at his disposal suddenly and without warning makes a 180 on his supposedly favorite foreign leader and unilaterally attacks a sovereign country without thinking one second about the consequences beyond "I want to do this"
The bombing will continue until morale improves!
Tomahawk missile
Manufacturer Raytheon/McDonnell Douglas
Unit cost US $1.59m
$1.59m X 59= $93,000,000
The morale at Raytheon is improving rapidly!
U.S. military spending was ~$600 BILLION in 2016. So this was what, like .015% of the budget?
I hardly think Raytheon's profitability was the main motivation.
depleted uranium is not sarin gas. It probably has some long term health effects but its not remotely comparable to a sudden horrific death from a single drop.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sensible Obama doing this and leading the UK-France coalition under UN approval in 2013 would have been great
This is nothing like it
I hope this will result in something positive for the Syrian people but I am very worried when a man known for his whimsical bouts of aggressivity and with nuclear weapons at his disposal suddenly and without warning makes a 180 on his supposedly favorite foreign leader and unilaterally attacks a sovereign country without thinking one second about the consequences beyond "I want to do this"
I really, really dislike Trump. He's a bully and a child, but that doesn't mean that everything he does is automatically wrong. That's the kind of thinking that led to Obama Derangement Syndrome(tm).
Al-Assad has had this coming for years.
depleted uranium is not sarin gas. It probably has some long term health effects but its not remotely comparable to a sudden horrific death from a single drop.
My point is that the use of it is equally as reprehensible. Its the pot calling the kettle black. Plus those are bombs made utilizing depleted uranium, the bombs kill at the point of contact initially and then poison the area long term thereafter.
Agreed that chemical weapons are vile and should not be used by anybody anywhere ever under any circumstances.
My point is that the use of it is equally as reprehensible.
No. That is absolutely ridiculous. There's a good debate to be had about how bad that stuff is, but it is NOT a deliberate attempt to painfully and indiscriminately kill as many people as possible. "bad" is NOT " as bad as".
Trump must want ISIL. Because that's how you get ISIL.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
@BigNorseWolf: I'm genuinely surprised at you. Depleted uranium is subtle, certainly quite unlike sarin gas, but otherwise it's all kinds of horrible, and the thing is, not just for the intended targets (warning: very unpleasant image, though I've seen worse).
@bugleyman: Nobody's defending Al-Assad (except Putin :P), but we can't just "liberate" countries from horrible regimes with military force...ESPECIALLY not when we've got a government like the one we presently have. You may indeed wind up finding exceptions to the rule that "everything Trump does is bad," but the amazing thing about him (and the GOP in general) is that...repeat experience has proven it would almost always work. Like, 99% of the time.
@Sissyl: The Military-Industrial Complex must FEED....
The bombing will continue until morale improves!
Tomahawk missile
Manufacturer Raytheon/McDonnell Douglas
Unit cost US $1.59m
$1.59m X 59= $93,000,000
The morale at Raytheon is improving rapidly!
Hee hee!
The brakes in the Doodlemobile gave out earlier today and I was sad thinking about money when I got a text at work about the bombing. Discussed it with a union brother and then, thinking about my car and my need for moolah, I commented, "I should go apply at Raytheon."
Anyway, I won't be able to make the emergency demo in Boston tomorrow evening. :(
No. That is absolutely ridiculous. There's a good debate to be had about how bad that stuff is, but it is NOT a deliberate attempt to painfully and indiscriminately kill as many people as possible. "bad" is NOT " as bad as".
My point is that the use of it is equally as reprehensible.
No, it's not ridiculous.
My belief is that utilizing weapons of mass destruction by any party, whether the US or Russia or Syria or anyone is morally reprehensible. Utilizing bombs the magnitude that are dropped in Syria, Iraq, Yemen etc. is fairly indiscriminate.
Just a week ago a US bombs killed 300 people in Mosul. Russian airstikes in Syria over the past year have killed over 1,000 civilians. That's just what we have heard about.
I have never been hit by a cruise missile or poisoned by sarin gas but I bet both feel pretty horrific and painful to experience.
If it is your belief that there is a distinction between these two different types of deaths, we can agree to disagree, but I think calling my belief ridiculous is itself ridiculous.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it is your belief that there is a distinction between these two different types of deaths, we can agree to disagree, but I think calling my belief ridiculous is itself ridiculous.
Wellllllll, Paladins fall for using poison of any sort, but not for maiming people with a sword or torching them with alchemist's fire. It MUST be more Evil!
Wellllllll, Paladins fall for using poison of any kind, but not for skewering people with a sword or torching them with alchemist's fire. It MUST be more Evil!If it is your belief that there is a distinction between these two different types of deaths, we can agree to disagree, but I think calling my belief ridiculous is itself ridiculous.
Hah! I guess Paladins that worship me better be pacifists then!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I don't get is, how will killing more civilians make a message to stop using weapons to kill civilians? So chemical weapons where used, how will bombing the rest of Syria going to help?
I agree with you here 100%.
I'll step into Trump's shoes for one second here and rationalize the decision. The strike was on an air force base. If the understanding of the chemical weapon attack was that it was delivered via an airstrike, destroying planes that delivered said airstrike would prevent the Government (like it or not its an elected Government not a Regime) from repeating that attack again as it would not have the planes to do so.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regime is as regime does. Don't try the "they had elections" card. If Trump were to abolish the supreme Court and the chambers of parliament, and banish term limits and elections tomorrow, it would be meaningless that he was in fact elected. It would be a regime, not an elected government. Indeed all the old Soviet bloc had elections. They were usually 103% in favour of Our Glorious Leader, but still.
Regime is as regime does. Don't try the "they had elections" card. If Trump were to abolish the supreme Court and the chambers of parliament, and banish term limits and elections tomorrow, it would be meaningless that he was in fact elected. It would be a regime, not an elected government. Indeed all the old Soviet bloc had elections. They were usually 103% in favour of Our Glorious Leader, but still.
"Elections" whether legitimate or a sham are still elections. There are not very many, if any, free and fair elections.
When does a Government cease to be a Government and become a Regime? Trump lost the popular vote and if The Best Democracy Money Can Buy is accurate, he may have rigged the Electoral College as well by removing millions of Democratic voters from ballots in 2017 (not to mention removal of votes by local officials through Gerrymandering). Does that mean that the US has a Regime and not a Government?
I am not saying I disagree with you BTW, just interested in your take.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'm sure we'll save lots of civilian lives by triggering World War 3. They'll view us as liberators!
Incidentally, Hillary Clinton appears to support this strategy. But she's always been a hawk. I think I'm done with the whole "grace period"/"let's not re-fight the primaries" stuff for a while. As long as Democrats like Clinton remain influential within the party, they remain a threat to the party's future. And, at present, the borderline warmongering the DNC has been pushing towards Russia is putting us all in danger.
Guys, surely you've seen enough wars in the Middle East to know that more and more and more doesn't fix the mess we create. This is only going to make things worse. Do you really envision a future where we invade Syria, Russia stands by and says, "Okay, do whatever you like, we decided we don't actually care," and we get to install some nice new puppet ruler who successfully stabilizes the region and kicks out DAESH for us?
Nobody here is a fan of Assad. But what do you think more war will accomplish? Do you think he'll just give up and say, "Okay, you win, no more atrocities" because we hit some airbases? This is escalation.
My belief is that utilizing weapons of mass destruction by any party, whether the US or Russia or Syria or anyone is morally reprehensible.
Thats an entirely different conversation than deplated uranium vs sarin gas.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Couple of things:
1) We (the Paizo community) are responding to a military event that happened in the middle eastern theatre of war, but that is also a strategic move the U.S made on the global scale - mainly due to the presence of Russia in the area. Thus, we can assume that the reasoning behind the move takes into account absurdly confidential knowledge that we naturally cannot access. Therefore, any attempt we make at rationalizing the attack or debunking said rational is bound to be woefully far from the actual truth of the matter.
2) Having said that, here are a few easily applicable rules of thumb that likely apply here. Number one, Russia is involved so nothing is as it seems - in the past decade Russia established a strategy of manipulation and misdirection that proved itself over and over and so they are likely to continue with it. Number two, applying external force on Arabs will not make them budge. An attack against them would be considered an affront to their honor, a crime to be avenged.It may have a short term impact of cowing them into seeking to avoid immediate conflict, such as happened with Hamas and Hizballah after major conflicts with Israel, but it will only deepen their determination to win long term. Number three, the U.S is the one and only true superpower in the world right now and any military move it makes is likely seeking to accomplish some sort of goal we cannot guess at, but which will have an impact in the near future of civilization. Or, even worse, they may have been tricked by Russia to think this will accomplish that goal.
Considering the above, it is hard to really know what to think about this attack, but I'm fearful of the event and lean towards disapproving of it. It feels to me like the gas attack was in the first place a Russian manipulation of one sort or another (as Assad has no real gain to achieve from using unconventional weaponry he know will rile the western world against him, so why do it?) and like the U.S is being lead by the nose to make this kind of offensive move. It also seems to me like the move has no chance of actually deterring anyone in the middle east from doing anything - and might in fact even incite more violence and cause more death in the area. Given that decision makers in the U.S surely know this, I conclude that the attack has some hidden agenda that benefits the U.S in some unknown context.
Bottom line? I think what we see is strong powers like Russia and the U.S making a chessboard out of the middle east again, with the human population of the place serving as pawns. And I don't like that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bottom line? I think what we see is strong powers like Russia and the U.S making a chessboard out of the middle east again, with the human population of the place serving as pawns. And I don't like that.
In case anyone's still unclear on what provoked the 9/11/2001 attacks, it has a lot less to do with our beer and bikinis and a lot more to do with this.
"Elections" whether legitimate or a sham are still elections. There are not very many, if any, free and fair elections.When does a Government cease to be a Government and become a Regime? Trump lost the popular vote and if The Best Democracy Money Can Buy is accurate, he may have rigged the Electoral College as well by removing millions of Democratic voters from ballots in 2017 (not to mention removal of votes by local officials through Gerrymandering). Does that mean that the US has a Regime and not a Government?
I am not saying I disagree with you BTW, just interested in your take.
A democracy is so much more than doing something every so often and calling it an election. There is a spectrum of things that add or detract from it. Rule of law, transparency, checks and balances, limits to secrecy and confidential act of government, etc etc etc.
At its core, I would say the hallmark of a democracy is "if more than half the population were to be sufficiently unhappy, could they assume power without bloodshed?" There are no hard and fast rules here, but the rules are structured to make that assumption of power possible. For what it's worth, the US is still a democracy, and bad presidents come and go in democracies. It has lost a lot of points for behaving badly since 2001, however. Democracy means at least half the population matters... but which half? That is the big question.
At its core, I would say the hallmark of a democracy is "if more than half the population were to be sufficiently unhappy, could they assume power without bloodshed?" There are no hard and fast rules here, but the rules are structured to make that assumption of power possible. For what it's worth, the US is still a democracy, and bad presidents come and go in democracies. It has lost a lot of points for behaving badly since 2001, however. Democracy means at least half the population matters... but which half? That is the big question.
By that standard, the U.S. is not -- and has never been -- a democracy.
You missed that little word "sufficiently" there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In general I hesitate to endorse courses of action that seek to immediately gratify the impotent rage one feels when watching the news.
Coming as it does from a chief executive who regarded a mere three months of unsuccessfully lobbying his own nominal party on health care as "enough already," I find it hard to credit it with any positive motive.
At least key allies were kept in the loop.
But people seem keen to forget that Obama's generally tepid (but still drone-happy!) middle eastern policy grew directly out of war-weariness from the previous administration's wars of choice. War-weariness we're not over yet, and are not likely to get over at this rate, because morally murky quagmires on foreign shores for nebulous goals have proven to be something of a specialty of our foreign policy since about 1950 or so.
Key allies like Assad's backer Russia?
Was thinking more about Great Britain and other NATO nations, who, given the current president's track record, had little cause to expect conventional good manners of that sort.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am shocked! Shocked I say!
A leader of the US using military force abroad to cover up for his own inadequacies at home.
Shocked I say!
Couple of things:
1) We (the Paizo community) are responding to a military event that happened in the middle eastern theatre of war, but that is also a strategic move the U.S made on the global scale - mainly due to the presence of Russia in the area. Thus, we can assume that the reasoning behind the move takes into account absurdly confidential knowledge that we naturally cannot access. Therefore, any attempt we make at rationalizing the attack or debunking said rational is bound to be woefully far from the actual truth of the matter.
Even hundreds of years of declassification later, when is the last time that a war was fought for secret reasons? (without going all reptiilian overlords) Politicians lie about the proximate causes but the ultimate causes are usually pretty obvious even without hindsight.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, the reasons publicly given for starting a war are usually different then the actual reason.
Just off the top of my head:
Viet Nam - Gulf of Tonkin incident.
Gulf War I - Iraqi soldiers tossing Kuawaiti babies out of incubators.
Afghanistan - Get the guys who killed themselves crashing planes into towers and Pentagon.
Gulf War II - WMD.