It wasn't his red line, to be fair. Putin must be having some serious buyer's remorse right now.
USA Politics
- Thread starter Genghis Khan
- Start date
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.
Travis The Dragon
AFTERGLOW!!!
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.
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
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.
Travis The Dragon
AFTERGLOW!!!
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!
Travis The Dragon
AFTERGLOW!!!
If this is a reliable source, here is Russia's response to what just happened.
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.
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.
Travis The Dragon
AFTERGLOW!!!
Here are the details on Trump's meeting with Chinese President, Xi Jinping. It sounds like it went really good and relations with China could improve as a result.
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".
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?
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.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Indeed it is.
There is no instant measure to end it all. And definitely not without using force.
Last edited:
I do not believe this. There is always a peaceful way if you look and try hard enough.
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?
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?
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.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
I haven't had time to look into these yet, but I wonder if they involved people like Assad and comparable terror and stubborness?
Assad had a big deal in this.
I don't think this action prolongued this war.
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.
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:
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.
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 see.
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 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.