StrangeSox Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Apr 7, 2017 -> 10:00 AM) I read 30 minutes, but if it was enough time for Russian soldiers to escape... I'd imagine the ratio of Russian soldiers + assets to Syrian soldiers + assets would be important here. We launched several dozen cruise missiles and only managed to destroy a handful of planes and kill 7 (I think?) people, so I'm guessing they got some of their stuff and people out of there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 QUOTE (bmags @ Apr 7, 2017 -> 09:58 AM) This is so ridiculous. I was mostly joking, but I actually got that from an ex-KGB agent that WGN interviewed this morning about his past and his thoughts on the current situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 WTF were Russian soldiers doing at a base that fired chemical weapons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Apr 7, 2017 -> 10:02 AM) I like when people start the "political route" doesn't work, we must bomb. When has the "bomb route" ever worked? Also, since when does this administration and people that like Trump all the sudden start giving a s*** about Syrian citizens or people in the middle east in general? They only ever get "humanitarian" when it's an excuse to bomb something. He has banned refugees and cut back on humanitarian aid. Trump authorized a mission in Yemen that ended up with a Navy Seal shooting a 6 year old girl in the neck, in which she bleed out and died from. Give me a f***ing break about people giving a s*** about people in that area. BOMB THEM AND TAKE THEIR OIL TORTURE WORKS! WE MUST TORTURE! KILL THEIR FAMILIES! NO REFUGEES! NO FOREIGN AID! Oh but we're definitely bombing for ~humanitarian reasons~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Apr 7, 2017 -> 10:02 AM) I like when people start the "political route" doesn't work, we must bomb. When has the "bomb route" ever worked? Also, since when does this administration and people that like Trump all the sudden start giving a s*** about Syrian citizens or people in the middle east in general? They only ever get "humanitarian" when it's an excuse to bomb something. He has banned refugees and cut back on humanitarian aid. Trump authorized a mission in Yemen that ended up with a Navy Seal shooting a 6 year old girl in the neck, in which she bleed out and died from. Give me a f***ing break about people giving a s*** about people in that area. Japan says hi, to your first question. And I agree this has nothing to do with a change in heart of Trump. The same people he's concerned about are the same people he called a trojan horse. But his past views or his justifications don't really factor in to whether this was an appropriate response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 7, 2017 -> 10:03 AM) WTF were Russian soldiers doing at a base that fired chemical weapons? Um, helping Assad wage his civil war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 Yes, but Assad had allegedly turned over all of his CW in a deal brokered by the US and Russia back in 2014 (or whatever the last post in this thread was before I bumped it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSox05 Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Apr 7, 2017 -> 10:05 AM) Japan says hi, to your first question. And I agree this has nothing to do with a change in heart of Trump. The same people he's concerned about are the same people he called a trojan horse. But his past views or his justifications don't really factor in to whether this was an appropriate response. Japan. We are going with Japan as the answer on that one. Cool. It's really hard to play the role of moral leader trying to stop the bad man from using Chemical weapons, at the same time you are selling weapons to Saudi Arabia as they lay waste to Yemen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 Japan and US were at war. I do think bombs solve problems when two countries are at war. I think they have significantly less efficacy when we are using them to coerce leaders to run their countries differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 QUOTE (bmags @ Apr 7, 2017 -> 10:13 AM) Japan and US were at war. I do think bombs solve problems when two countries are at war. I think they have significantly less efficacy when we are using them to coerce leaders to run their countries differently. So using chemical weapons on innocent women and children is a form of domestic governance. Gotcha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 It's not, but there's been a raging civil war going on there for over half a decade now and Assad's done plenty of heinous s*** with and without chemical weapons. The US getting more involved in Syria is not going to end well for anyone including Syrians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 The New York Times ✔ @nytimes Trump's decision on the Syria strike was an emotional act by a man suddenly aware the world’s problems were now his http://nyti.ms/2p9Ls1W 9:30 AM - 7 Apr 2017 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/world/mi...s&smtyp=cur This article infuriates me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 7, 2017 -> 10:21 AM) It's not, but there's been a raging civil war going on there for over half a decade now and Assad's done plenty of heinous s*** with and without chemical weapons. The US getting more involved in Syria is not going to end well for anyone including Syrians. I don't disagree with the last statement, but IMO Assad knew Obama would never actually get involved, which is why he didn't honor his agreement (queue us finding out Iran's still working on it's nuclear weapons program at some point in the near future). I like this move for two reasons: (1) Again, it shows the world that Trump is different from Obama, and military intervention is now an option on the table, and (2) it was a minimal loss strike that sent a message more than anything else, without totally pissing off Russia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 Obama went to Congress to ask for authorization to make a military strike on Assad, which the Republicans denied him. He did this after having participated in military intervention in Libya (which did not go well and is still a s***show), increasing troop presence in Afghanistan, and having a large scale drone program running. The idea that Obama didn't have military intervention on the table is delusional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 7, 2017 -> 10:28 AM) Obama went to Congress to ask for authorization to make a military strike on Assad, which the Republicans denied him. He did this after having participated in military intervention in Libya (which did not go well and is still a s***show), increasing troop presence in Afghanistan, and having a large scale drone program running. The idea that Obama didn't have military intervention on the table is delusional. 1) And yes, Assad knew that politically Obama couldn't come after him because of how Libya went. 2) IMO Obama knew he wouldn't get authorization and he knew he could then claim he wanted to but couldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 7, 2017 -> 10:28 AM) Obama went to Congress to ask for authorization to make a military strike on Assad, which the Republicans denied him. He did this after having participated in military intervention in Libya (which did not go well and is still a s***show), increasing troop presence in Afghanistan, and having a large scale drone program running. The idea that Obama didn't have military intervention on the table is delusional. Right. It wasn't just republicans though, it wasn't close to passing in the house. But also, Congress was right. This is the most hawkish, reasonable position I could support in Syria: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/44653...mp-syria-strike But even that, what are we really propping up in Northern Syria? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSox05 Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 (edited) "Military intervention is now an option on the table." Lmao. Do other countries ever think that it's not on the table when it comes to America? We are literally bombing like 7 different countries and have troop presence in almost as many. Edited April 7, 2017 by GoSox05 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Apr 7, 2017 -> 10:16 AM) So using chemical weapons on innocent women and children is a form of domestic governance. Gotcha. I know that was said rather lightly, I don't mean to demean the deaths. But after Libya and Iraq, it is hard for me to say once again that intervening and stopping air support accomplishes anything. It may prolong the war, weaken Assad. But, Assad will still bomb the s*** out of civilian areas. Assad could tumble and a group of violent extremists could take over and wreak havoc over the pro-Assad population. If this is an isolated strike that prevents all future chemical weapon uses in this civil war that maybe is worth while. I'm not ruling it out. But I'm deeply skeptical this is where it ends, and that it achieves an end-goal in Syria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 (edited) QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Apr 7, 2017 -> 10:35 AM) "Military intervention is now an option on the table." Lmao. Do other countries ever think that it's not on the table when it comes to America? We are literally bombing like 7 different countries and have troop presence in almost as many. You can make a plausible case that during the last few years of the Obama presidency, any new military intervention was politically very dangerous for him and thus not really an option. We now have a new President and it was important, or at least significant, that he took an action that set the stage going forward. He realigned America's position in Syria at least a little for the new administration. I agree with bmags that ultimately this probably does nothing to stop Assad from murdering his own people, but at least a statement from the new admn was made. Where it goes from here is the next question mark. Edited April 7, 2017 by JenksIsMyHero Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSox05 Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Apr 7, 2017 -> 10:46 AM) You can make a plausible case that during the last few years of the Obama presidency, any new military intervention was politically very dangerous for him and thus not really an option. We now have a new President and it was important, or at least significant, that he took an action that set the stage going forward. He realigned America's position in Syria at least a little for the new administration. I agree with bmags that ultimately this probably does nothing to stop Assad from murdering his own people, but at least a statement from the new admn was made. Where it goes from here is the next question mark. What is Americas position in Syria? This probably made it more complicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Apr 7, 2017 -> 10:52 AM) What is Americas position in Syria? This probably made it more complicated. Ha, well that's fair, who knows what it is or should be. But at least one thing is clear: you use chemical weapons, we inflict damage to your military capabilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSox05 Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Apr 7, 2017 -> 10:54 AM) Ha, well that's fair, who knows what it is or should be. But at least one thing is clear: you use chemical weapons, we inflict damage to your military capabilities. Unless we sell you those type of weapons. Then we help you build military capabilities! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Apr 7, 2017 -> 10:54 AM) Ha, well that's fair, who knows what it is or should be. But at least one thing is clear: you use chemical weapons, we inflict damage to your military capabilities. As long as you don't let them know ahead of time so they can remove everything before you strike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/850359674717319168 Matthew YglesiasVerified account @mattyglesias "Trump is an unstable, ignorant, madman with no regard for democracy but I'm glad he's shooting missiles" is a bizarrely popular take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 Sens. Corker, Cardin: Trump Has No Long-Term Syria Plan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts