USA Politics


This is a stream I did with a friend about the Syria intervention, if you want some more in-depth thoughts of mine. But I basically see this as an act of war against Syria; there's no way for Syria to see it as anything else. As for Russia's involvement, I think they'll have to back down, lest they run the risk of getting themselves and the West enveloped in a maelstrom of death.
 
I just came across a quote that perfectly sums up the thoughts I have after talking to children who grew up in refugee camps and reading the news of still more escalating violence and foreign bombs in places like Syria and Iraq:

"Once you reached a certain point of atrocity, it doesn't matter who committed it: It should only stop." - 8. April 1945, Frau Wilde, 5 children

Make of it what you like.
 
"Atrocities" are needed to end other atrocities if there is no other way, or when another way takes too much time (and atrocities).

Not responding like the US did, or doing nothing at all, tolerates atrocities, tolerates war crimes. Atrocities should stop, so that's why this is needed.

Hitler was beaten with violence. Japan was beaten with violence. When there's no reason and diplomacy left to defend human kind, what else is left?
RTC said:
But I basically see this as an act of war against Syria.
Click to expand...
Of course.

What else would we have rather seen? I mean, an airfield was attacked. How can this be condemned so much, how can it shock so much? In the light of all these numerous of attacks on civilians, is it so saddening or surprising that (at last) something is done against Assad's regime?
Little and late, but perhaps a turning point.
 
Last edited:
Forostar said:
"Atrocities" are needed to end other atrocities if there is no other way, or when another way takes too much time (and atrocities).

Not responding like the US did, or doing nothing at all, tolerates atrocities, tolerates war crimes. Atrocities should stop, so that's why this is needed.

Hitler was beaten with violence. Japan was beaten with violence. When there's no reason and diplomacy left to defend human kind, what else is left?

Of course.

What else would we have rather seen? I mean, an airfield was attacked. How can this be condemned so much, how can it shock so much? In the light of all these numerous of attacks on civilians, is it so saddening or surprising that (at last) something is done against Assad's regime?
Little and late, but perhaps a turning point.
Click to expand...

Do you honestly think that Donald Trump is the right guy to trust to end a conflict with reason and measure?

"An airfield was attacked". People died*. Another party joined the war. When is this going to end?


*I previously said "70", I got my numbers mixed up
 
Last edited:
Right, I got the numbers mixed up.

I'd better withdraw from this, because obviously I have the wrong opinion.
 
Regardless of numbers .. gas attack on civilians v strike on military base that launched gas attack on civilians does not seem overly comparable. My hope is that is all we are planning on doing and the message that gas attacks will get a response was delivered ... and Syria can go back to being the clusterfuck it has been.

We will see what happens next
 
bearfan said:
My hope is that is all we are planning on doing
Click to expand...

That's getting to the core of it. Nobody knows what Donald Trump is planning, and people should be very cautious with cheering for him. The lack of foresight got real trouble going in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, and it's happening here again. Syria is bad enough as it is - American airstrikes add a load to the problem, they remove nothing.
 
Not wrong. A different opinion. Good point about Trump. I really dare not say how his unpredictablity will play out. I am somewhat relieved that he does not simply leave the world to Russia and the rest of the bad guys. I feared he would let all the problems outside his borders be for what they are.
 
Perun said:
That's getting to the core of it. Nobody knows what Donald Trump is planning, and people should be very cautious with cheering for him. The lack of foresight got real trouble going in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, and it's happening here again. Syria is bad enough as it is - American airstrikes add a load to the problem, they remove nothing.
Click to expand...
In general I agree with that .. there is no good end game in Syria ... but I do think if the response is limited to "no more gas attacks" and those stop ... it is worth it.

Time will tell.
 
bearfan said:
I thought Russia guaranteed these things were gone .... obviously not.
Click to expand...

A good read:
Syria war: US missile strike leaves Russia bruised
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39531339

"Be careful what you wish for", the old saying goes - and this is exactly what the Russian leadership must be thinking right now.

The Kremlin's dreams of a US-Russian rapprochement under President Donald Trump were shattered by the American Tomahawk cruise missiles slamming into the Syrian air base. One might add another piece of advice: "Choose your allies carefully".

It is an unexpected reversal of fortune for Russia and President Vladimir Putin.

Only a few days ago US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said that removing Syria's Bashar al-Assad from power was no longer Washington's priority. This was probably taken by the Syrian president as carte blanche to step up his attacks on the opposition. But the chemical attack on the town of Khan Sheikhoun - believed to be the work of his forces - backfired.

Even if one sets moral considerations apart (and this was a war crime, pure and simple), Moscow's credibility among the leading players in the region is dented now.

Either: Moscow knew about the planned attack and condoned it - which means its co-sponsorship with the US of the 2013 Syrian chemical weapons liquidation deal was a ruse, a deception, and it therefore cannot be trusted;

Or: the Assad regime deceived Russia and kept some of its chemical weapons (or production facilities) hidden, to use them at will. Then it means that the Kremlin has zero leverage on Damascus. In the hard-power world of the Middle East one doesn't know which outcome is more damaging for Russia.

Two US destroyers casually launched 59 cruise missiles, worth nearly $1m (£m) each, just to make a political point. That underlines the discrepancy in financial and material resources between the US and Russia.

The fact that the Americans told Moscow in advance about the strike, to avoid casualties among Russian military personnel stationed on the airbase, only added insult to injury. The message was unmistakable: "Step aside please while we do our own thing here."......


........ Probably the most unpleasant thing for Mr Putin is Turkey's approval of the US strikes. The Russian leader made a big personal effort to forge an alliance between Russia, Iran and Turkey, to help impose the Russian vision of future Syrian conflict resolution, which would keep the Assad regime intact. Now it looks as if Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has started playing a different game.

President Trump said he took the decision to launch a strike based on humanitarian grounds, after seeing images of gassed children. Whether it is true or not, such an attitude will earn him support in Europe, where such considerations are important. That's bad news for Moscow. ..........
 
Honestly, as sad as it is, I think war is the only thing that can end this conflict. I'm not arguing in favor of war, obviously, but I think it's the only thing that's gonna keep this from being a very dragged out conflict. Both parties are very adamant in their positions. The aggressiveness of rhetoric and actions go up and down, but the mindsets are always there.

Putin will never back down from backing Assad. Assad abusing his citizens to remain in power will never sit well with United States and NATO in general. It seems to me that war is getting more and more unavoidable.
 
I was a bit worried how Russia would react to this, but it might not be too bad.

From: http://defconwarningsystem.com/2017/04/07/syria-event/
We won’t dive deeply into what is generally known: The United States has launched a military strike against Syria.

The burning question is, “What does this mean? What is going to happen next?”

Right now, Russia doesn’t know how to respond. They are surprised that the Untied States did anything. This is a major change from the previous US Administration. Russia is trying to figure out what to do that expresses strength, but does not unduly escalate things, especially in the light of not knowing how the US President will respond to their response.

Is Russia willing to go to the mat over Syria? How far is the United States willing to go if Russia takes action outside the current theatre?

At this time, we are holding at DEFCON 5. We continue to monitor, and are waiting to see what Russia will do.

Although Russia has stated that this represents and escalation, we do not believe that this will be more than a minor incident. We do believe Russia will do something, but may be more on the diplomatic front rather than militarily.

We do not believe there is any cause for undue public concern at this time.

We will continue to monitor and report as necessary throughout the night.
Click to expand...
 
It's not just a major change from the Obama administration, it flies directly in opposition to Trump's promises and statements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top