1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

USA Politics

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Genghis Khan, Dec 22, 2007.

  1. Travis The Dragon

    Travis The Dragon SCREAM FOR ME MINNESOTA!!!

    Ya, I don't understand it at all. Yet North Korea tortures and kills their citizens in concentration camps nonstop and we're still leaving them alone?
     
  2. bearfan

    bearfan Ancient Mariner

    China
     
  3. LooseCannon

    LooseCannon Self-propelled artillery Staff Member

    It wasn't his red line, to be fair. Putin must be having some serious buyer's remorse right now.
     
  4. LooseCannon

    LooseCannon Self-propelled artillery Staff Member

    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.
     
  5. Travis The Dragon

    Travis The Dragon SCREAM FOR ME MINNESOTA!!!

    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.
     
  6. bearfan

    bearfan Ancient Mariner

    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
     
  7. bearfan

    bearfan Ancient Mariner

    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.
     
  8. Travis The Dragon

    Travis The Dragon SCREAM FOR ME MINNESOTA!!!

  9. LooseCannon

    LooseCannon Self-propelled artillery Staff Member

    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!
     
  10. Travis The Dragon

    Travis The Dragon SCREAM FOR ME MINNESOTA!!!

  11. The Flash

    The Flash Dennis Wilcock did 9/11

    No I mean a full-fledged war with direct U.S. involvement a la Vietnam, not a civil war.
     
  12. bearfan

    bearfan Ancient Mariner

    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.
     
  13. Travis The Dragon

    Travis The Dragon SCREAM FOR ME MINNESOTA!!!

  14. Forostar

    Forostar Ancient Mariner

  15. Dr. Eddies Wingman

    Dr. Eddies Wingman Brighter than thousand_suns

    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".
     
  16. Perun

    Perun At the Heart of Winter Staff Member

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

    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.
     
  17. Forostar

    Forostar Ancient Mariner

    Indeed it is.
    There is no instant measure to end it all. And definitely not without using force.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2017
  18. Perun

    Perun At the Heart of Winter Staff Member

    I do not believe this. There is always a peaceful way if you look and try hard enough.
     
  19. Forostar

    Forostar Ancient Mariner

    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?
     
  20. Perun

    Perun At the Heart of Winter Staff Member

    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.

    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.

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

    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.

    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.
     

Share This Page