USA Politics

Yet North Korea tortures and kills their citizens in concentration camps nonstop and we're still leaving them alone?
The capital city of a major US ally is directly under North Korean guns. If the US dropped 50 Tomahawks on North Korea - win or lose - Seoul would burn and tens of thousands would die instantly.

Assuming Kim doesn't toss nukes.
 
Ya, it's a really fucked up situation. And China being their ally doesn't help either. China's president has flown here to meet with Trump so hopefully they can come to a good decision on all of this.
 
I think it was his red line ... Foreign Policy carries over from administration to administration .. there is no reset button. There is a chance to shape it differently, but it is not like what happened in the past just goes away. For various reasons ... gas attacks have been treated differently than lobbing an artillery shell
 
Ya, it's a really fucked up situation. And China being their ally doesn't help either. China's president has flown here to meet with Trump so hopefully they can come to a good decision on all of this.

The only way North Korea will join the 20th Century .. much less the 21st will be when North Koreans overthrow that family line or by some miracle one of the kids turns out to not be a world class asshole .. which ironically will get them tossed out.
 
I think it was his red line
That's absolutely silly. Foreign policy is the only place the president of the US has direct control. That's like saying Obama owned the invasion of Iraq because it was done under the previous administration, or like saying Bush owned the bombing of Serbia in 1998, etc. Trump is carving out his own foreign policy, exactly as all the previous presidents going back to GHWB have done.

Trump specifically abrogated the previous administration's stance in Syria by promising American neutrality. Specifically. Trump killed the Obama red line. And then he enforced it!
 
That's absolutely silly. Foreign policy is the only place the president of the US has direct control. That's like saying Obama owned the invasion of Iraq because it was done under the previous administration, or like saying Bush owned the bombing of Serbia in 1998, etc. Trump is carving out his own foreign policy, exactly as all the previous presidents going back to GHWB have done.

Trump specifically abrogated the previous administration's stance in Syria by promising American neutrality. Specifically. Trump killed the Obama red line. And then he enforced it!

Of course they own previous policy. Obama might not have been in favor of Iraq, for example, but he owned it in the state it was in when he took office ... it is not like he said, "Iraq bad, all troops out on January 21st". Trump owned the previous policy on Syria ... whatever that was.
 
So at least the US say the attack was a success. And if we take their word for it - well done to those who executed it, of course. But in order to make sure there are no more gas attacks, they would have to wipe out nearly all of Assad's air force. That's what I meant by the question in the first place (but I see that I could have phrased it better).

After some days, I am still not sure what to think of this. Assad probably thought he had carte blanche to do whatever he wanted, because he has the backing of Russia and the US had signaled that they would no longer see a regime change as mandatory. Thus he carried out the gas attack to put someone in their place - and then Trump changed his mind (or was bluffing all along).

If the consequence is that no more gas is used, that's a good thing. But it doesn't really change much, the war is still the same hell it has been for six years. Remember, there are hundreds of thousands of dead, only a very tiny fraction of those have been killed by chemical weapons. The US strike was not an attempt to turn the tide of the war, but to signal "don't use chemical weapons, you SOAB".
 

Honestly: Why should we take the Trump administration's word on this, given its record with perception of reality?

If the consequence is that no more gas is used, that's a good thing. But it doesn't really change much, the war is still the same hell it has been for six years. Remember, there are hundreds of thousands of dead, only a very tiny fraction of those have been killed by chemical weapons. The US strike was not an attempt to turn the tide of the war, but to signal "don't use chemical weapons, you SOAB".

That's the feeling I get from it right now as well. I'm not even sure it was all about that, maybe it was just the next best thing Trump could use to demonstrate that he's willing to use military force. And I get sick from the idea that everybody is applauding him for this. Bombing other countries, no matter what reason, is the last thing you should give Trump your approval for.
 
I wouldn't mind seeing some examples please.

When something does not immediately end a war, that's not a good argument to not do it, imo.
The arguments in favour of this action have already been given.

Still I wonder how you guys look at these terms in this context:
- war crimes
- punishing
- fighting back
- give a warning
- decrease capacity of war criminal's/dictor's army

And would you guys explain how these 59 rockets made things worse?

Has wanting to keep Assad on his position anything to do with it? I mean, would you like him to stay there because you're afraid to see "a Gadaffi" aftermath?
Or/and do you want Putin have his way?
 
I wouldn't mind seeing some examples please.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_598
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Paris_Peace_Accords
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayton_Agreement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algiers_Agreement_(2000)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1128

Plenty more where that came from.

How do you guys look at these terms in this context:
- war crimes
- punishing
- fighting back
- give a warning
- decrease capacity of war criminal's/dictor's army

I do not know if these factors are worth the price paid by children who grow up in refugee camps and drowning on their way to safety. I know this is a deadbeat argument, but after repeated contact and conversation with children who made it here and have no memory of their country except for barbed wire and tents, I think anyone pushing for the points you mentioned should answer directly to these children why their childhood, well-being and future should be sacrificed for enforcing such ideals.

When something does not immediately end a war, that's not a good argument to not do it, imo.

But when something prolongs a war, that would be a good argument not to do it, imo.

Would you guys explain how these 59 rockets made things worse?

These particular 59 rockets made things worse by killing people who would otherwise not have been killed. Another 59 rockets will kill more people. They are absolutely not making anything better.

Has wanting to keep Assad on his position anything to do with it? I mean, would you like him to stay there because you're afraid to see "a Gadaffi" aftermath?

The conflict in Syria is already so fucked up that another war party is not needed, especially not one under the leadership of a narcissistic maniac with small fingers who has unclear motives and in all likelihood simply likes things to go boom. This war could end if Russia and the US negotiated to work together to solve it, instead of working against each other. And yes, negotiations mean compromise. And compromise means also doing things Russia wants to do. If Russia is only seen as a bad guy and an enemy, then this conflict will not end anytime soon.
 
I haven't had time to look into these yet, but I wonder if they involved people like Assad and comparable terror and stubborness?
I do not know if these factors are worth the price paid by children who grow up in refugee camps and drowning on their way to safety. I know this is a deadbeat argument, but after repeated contact and conversation with children who made it here and have no memory of their country except for barbed wire and tents, I think anyone pushing for the points you mentioned should answer directly to these children why their childhood, well-being and future should be sacrificed for enforcing such ideals.
Assad had a big deal in this.
But when something prolongs a war, that would be a good argument not to do it, imo.
I don't think this action prolongued this war.
These particular 59 rockets made things worse by killing people who would otherwise not have been killed. Another 59 rockets will kill more people. They are absolutely not making anything better.
These rockets prevented the use of planes (and airfield) to continue the Assad/Russia led bombings. So they prevent more killings. At least, they prevent gas killings.
The conflict in Syria is already so fucked up that another war party is not needed, especially not one under the leadership of a narcissistic maniac with small fingers who has unclear motives and in all likelihood simply likes things to go boom. This war could end if Russia and the US negotiated to work together to solve it, instead of working against each other. And yes, negotiations mean compromise. And compromise means also doing things Russia wants to do. If Russia is only seen as a bad guy and an enemy, then this conflict will not end anytime soon.
I wonder which things Russia wants. And if that's going to happen.

Do you agree with Tillerson here?

The United States hopes Russia will abandon its support Syrian President Bashar al-Assad because actions such as last week's chemical attack have stripped him of all legitimacy, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said on Tuesday.
"It is clear to us the reign of the Assad family is coming to an end," he told reporters at a meeting of Group of Seven foreign ministers shortly before leaving for Moscow.
"We hope that the Russian government concludes that they have aligned themselves with an unreliable partner in (Syrian President) Bashar Al-Assad," he said.
 
Last edited:
I haven't had time to look into these yet, but I wonder if they involved people like Assad and comparable terror and stubborness?

You're going to find differences if you look for them, but yes, I think the conflicts in Bosnia, Northern Ireland, Tajikistan or the Iran-Iraq War could qualify for such attributes.

Assad had a big deal in this.

As did ISIL, Al Nusra, Rojava, FSA, Islamic Front, etc. Funny how we suddenly forgot about all those. Plus, it doesn't make a difference for the victim who shot or gassed him.

I don't think this action prolongued this war.

I see.

These rockets prevented the use of planes (and airfield) to continue the Assad/Russia led bombings. So they prevent more killings. At least, they prevent gas killings.

You don't know this. The US government claimed it destroyed a fifth of the Syrian air force, but I cannot stress this enough, it's the same government that claimed Trump's inauguration had the biggest ever turnout, that the Bowling Green Massacre happened, that Obama wiretapped Trump and that microwaves are surveilling people.

I wonder which things Russia wants. And if that's going to happen.

Do you agree with Tillerson here?

The United States hopes Russia will abandon its support Syrian President Bashar al-Assad because actions such as last week's chemical attack have stripped him of all legitimacy, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said on Tuesday.
"It is clear to us the reign of the Assad family is coming to an end," he told reporters at a meeting of Group of Seven foreign ministers shortly before leaving for Moscow.
"We hope that the Russian government concludes that they have aligned themselves with an unreliable partner in (Syrian President) Bashar Al-Assad," he said.

I do not agree that this is Rex Tillerson's business. I do not agree that the US has any business here if what they are doing is using Syria as a battlefield for a proxy war against Russia. I do not agree that the Trump administration should be applauded for this, and I am frankly deeply disturbed by the fact that it is finding approval for this from people who otherwise like to say they're huge critics of Trump's. He is playing a game with you. He is trying to get your approval on something, he wants to hear from everybody on some issue that he is the right man for the job. This is where it would be appropriate to compare it to the rise of Hitler. This is exactly what Hitler did - draw everyone in on something.
 
Back
Top