Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2017/04/07 18:31:30
Subject: US Ships launch 60 cruise missiles at Syrian air base
Anyone arguing for it when no other nation does something, you betcha. If its not a compelling interest to the US then it should not be done.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2017/04/07 18:34:08
Subject: Re:US Ships launch 60 cruise missiles at Syrian air base
You can do better with an AK? That must be why people go through the trouble of producing a chemical with such a high kill rate.
Why risk breaking international law when just an AK will do?
Because you can't always get forces with AKs into and out of where you want killing to happen. Pretty much the reason all indirect and many long range direct fire weapons are bought and used.
But you knew that.
Do you want to try to refute my actual point, that sarin does not have a 100% kill rate when used?
Sarin gas has a 100% kill rate when mixed at a weapons grade level. Even at lower than lethal doses, without the antidote it can cause serious damage to the nervous system that will require medical attention for the rest of the persons life.
How is this any diffetent than a bullet?
Yeah if you take a certain concentration of Sarin or VX, it is 100% fatal. Taking a bullet to the brain is 100% fatal too. Yeah a lower dose will cause permanent terrible injury, so will bullets striking a non-immediately-lethal target.
Because a bullet takes aim. You are not going to get a 100% headshot all of the time. I don't care how much you watch The Walking Dead.
Thats why we have a 30 round magazine and a 600rpm rate of fire.
Also, you are not going to die from a bullet to the brain 100% of the time.
Barring non penetration of the skull, an AK bullet is going to be as close to 100% lethal as a high dose of Sarin.
Ultimately, again however, Sarin is not 100% lethal outside of high concentrations and confined areas, and what difference does that lethality rating make? A 500lb iron bomb is also 100% lethal within a certain radius, arguably moreso than the AK or Sarin. Not seeing where the lethality is so important, and Sarins lethality on an open battlefield is being grossly over exaggerated
BigWaaagh wrote: re: Vaktathi - Chemical, Nuclear, Biological warfare are international taboos. They just are and the world has agreements in place stating exactly that.
So is torture, attacks on civilians, levelling civilian towns and cities, bulldozing people alive, restricting food and medical supplies and allowing people to starve to death or die from treatablr causes, executions of prisoners, and other such atrocities, what is different about gas?
9/12/13 *Syria sent a letter to the United Nations Secretary General which said that Assad signed a legislative decree providing the accession of Syria to the Chemical Weapons Convention. In the letter, Assad said Syria would observe its CWC obligations immediately, as opposed to 30 days from the date of accession, as stipulated in the treaty.
This isn't about whether the other patterns of atrocities committed by Assad's forces are "lessened" by this action, they aren't. But this, undeniably, is uniquely different.
It's only different because people are choosing to arbitrarily see it differently.
Assad has signed and agreed to many things and then reneged, what about gas is fundamentally different aside from "just because"?
There's absolutely nothing arbitrary in the global condemnation of the use of chemical weapons. Nothing arbitrary at all.
I mean...you can state so, but that doesnt make it so, at least, in relation to the other things happening in Syria.
What about gas is so much worse than bulldozing people alive, bombing them with incendiary devices and explosives, starving them to death, torture, killing of prisoners, etc?
The big thing with chemical weapons is that they dont really do anything conventional weapons dont but add costs to both attacker and defender, so everyone agrees to just not use them, but fundamentally its hard to see any moral issue that makes gas so much worse than being exploded, buried alive, bleeding out after multiple gunshot wounds for hours, etc.
[/spoiler]
No, actually, I can state so because it is so by international declarations, treaties and agreements. THIS IS FACT! WMD's get their own classification and treatment. THIS IS FACT! You're trying to draw, what, a "A is as bad as B, so what's the difference" argument here? Give me a break.
Varkathi: I'm not arguing against the fact that such weapons are banned by many treaties and agreements, I'm stating that a whole bunch of other things Assad has done are just as bad and against just as many treaties and agreements and declarations. What makes gas so different than those things that its worth going to war over when those others, that are just as bad or worse in terms of effects and scale and are against just as many agreements, were not?
ME(I suck at editing): Who's gone to war? We declared war? This was a measured response to a specific action. And for the last time, if you don't get the whole concept of WMD's being categorically different and condemned in the eyes of the entire world than conventional warfare, then you're not getting the point and purpose of the action, or this thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Anyone arguing for it when no other nation does something, you betcha. If its not a compelling interest to the US then it should not be done.
I didn't know Neville Chamberlain had relatives in Texas.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2017/04/07 18:39:15
2017/04/07 18:46:17
Subject: Re:US Ships launch 60 cruise missiles at Syrian air base
BigWaaagh wrote: The only thing worse than inhaling chemical gas used in an attack on civilians is inhaling the stench of appeasement, in the face of such barbarianism, spewed from isolationist cowards living comfortably across the world.
Right, it makes so much more sense for us to send our troops over to be subjected to chemical weapon attacks and be killed and maimed while waging a fight against virtually everyone in a multi faction civil war in a country whose regime is allied with a nuclear power in order to create a power vacuum and unwinnable peace that would require decades of bloodshed and trillions of dollars in a rebuilding effort if we somehow accomplished the task without starting a nuclear war. I don't want a govt that represents ME to send my fellow citizens out to fight and die in some far away land in a conflict I would never send my children out to fight. I'm not one of the people who would be risking their lives in the name of Syrian regime change and I'm not going to saber rattle to send others to fight futile battles that I wouldn't fight. There are multiple veterans who live in my neighborhood, they're great guys and I wouldn't want a single one of them to have been sent out to die in the streets in Syria and I don't want a single American that's currently in the service to die in Syria either.
Once again, try and read the message before you knee jerk with the isolationist rhetoric. There needed to be a response to this horrific breach of international protocol and there was. You're already at WWIII. Take a pill.
It's not WW3 and it's not going to get to WW3. Best case Assad is disposed internally and a more moderate pro Russia despot takes his place. Everyone gets to check off the "regime change" box and we move on. Worst case Russia continues to stand by Assad and we continue with the intermittent bombing anytime Trump thinks popular opinion supports it and political points can be scored. We're not going to actually start a war with a nuclear power over Syria. The juice isn't worth the squeeze for us by a long shot.
Yeah, but that's not really what you've been saying here, is it? You've been ranting on about the escalation scenario when just the opposite is true. The response was measured and it did rattle the saber, which can work just fine, thank you, but you're harping on about US troops strolling through the suburbs of Damascus while drawing down the ire of a nuclear power. THIS WAS A MEASURED RESPONSE TO THE USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS WHICH ARE A NO-NO TO THE WHOLE FETHING WORLD, not us declaring war on Syria or escalating or taking on Russia. It is what it is, nothing more. Doing nothing in the face of this ultimate atrocity is not an option, frankly. Furthermore...and I don't see how anybody can't see this...I think the Chems were used purposefully because Trump has been vocally "meh" about Syrian involvement/interest. Kind of reminds me when GHWB gave what was interpreted as a verbal green light to Saddam to invade Kuwait. This is the nature of dictators. They're opportunists and have no compulsion about ruthlessness in the execution of the opportunistic nature.
I don't recall Obama launching cruise missiles during the multiple instances of chemical weapon attacks in Syria during the last 6 years. Why was it ok for Obama to not blast Syrian airfields? Did the OT have threads about the chemical weapons attacks in Syria that happened in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016? Why was Trump's attack morally necessary but Obama's inaction acceptable?
Launching an attack against a military base in another sovereign nation is absolutely an act of war. How is the US military deliberately attacking the Syrian military not an act of war?
It's also a possibility that opposition forces were in possession of chemical weapons and conventional bombing by the Syrian air force (which had conducted multiple bombings of that city previously) set them off. We know that opposition forces, especially ISIS have already used chemical weapons in Syria.
Frazzled wrote: Anyone arguing for it when no other nation does something, you betcha. If its not a compelling interest to the US then it should not be done.
I didn't know Neville Chamberlain had relatives in Texas.
Everything is bigger and better in Texas, including the appeasement.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/07 18:47:26
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2017/04/07 18:47:59
Subject: Re:US Ships launch 60 cruise missiles at Syrian air base
I didn't know Neville Chamberlain had relatives in Texas.
If its good enough for George Washington its good enough for me, chickenhawk.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2017/04/07 18:48:46
Subject: US Ships launch 60 cruise missiles at Syrian air base
BigWaaagh wrote: The only thing worse than inhaling chemical gas used in an attack on civilians is inhaling the stench of appeasement, in the face of such barbarianism, spewed from isolationist cowards living comfortably across the world.
Right, it makes so much more sense for us to send our troops over to be subjected to chemical weapon attacks and be killed and maimed while waging a fight against virtually everyone in a multi faction civil war in a country whose regime is allied with a nuclear power in order to create a power vacuum and unwinnable peace that would require decades of bloodshed and trillions of dollars in a rebuilding effort if we somehow accomplished the task without starting a nuclear war. I don't want a govt that represents ME to send my fellow citizens out to fight and die in some far away land in a conflict I would never send my children out to fight. I'm not one of the people who would be risking their lives in the name of Syrian regime change and I'm not going to saber rattle to send others to fight futile battles that I wouldn't fight. There are multiple veterans who live in my neighborhood, they're great guys and I wouldn't want a single one of them to have been sent out to die in the streets in Syria and I don't want a single American that's currently in the service to die in Syria either.
Once again, try and read the message before you knee jerk with the isolationist rhetoric. There needed to be a response to this horrific breach of international protocol and there was. You're already at WWIII. Take a pill.
It's not WW3 and it's not going to get to WW3. Best case Assad is disposed internally and a more moderate pro Russia despot takes his place. Everyone gets to check off the "regime change" box and we move on. Worst case Russia continues to stand by Assad and we continue with the intermittent bombing anytime Trump thinks popular opinion supports it and political points can be scored. We're not going to actually start a war with a nuclear power over Syria. The juice isn't worth the squeeze for us by a long shot.
Yeah, but that's not really what you've been saying here, is it? You've been ranting on about the escalation scenario when just the opposite is true. The response was measured and it did rattle the saber, which can work just fine, thank you, but you're harping on about US troops strolling through the suburbs of Damascus while drawing down the ire of a nuclear power. THIS WAS A MEASURED RESPONSE TO THE USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS WHICH ARE A NO-NO TO THE WHOLE FETHING WORLD, not us declaring war on Syria or escalating or taking on Russia. It is what it is, nothing more. Doing nothing in the face of this ultimate atrocity is not an option, frankly. Furthermore...and I don't see how anybody can't see this...I think the Chems were used purposefully because Trump has been vocally "meh" about Syrian involvement/interest. Kind of reminds me when GHWB gave what was interpreted as a verbal green light to Saddam to invade Kuwait. This is the nature of dictators. They're opportunists and have no compulsion about ruthlessness in the execution of the opportunistic nature.
I don't recall Obama launching cruise missiles during the multiple instances of chemical weapon attacks in Syria during the last 6 years. Why was it ok for Obama to not blast Syrian airfields? Did the OT have threads about the chemical weapons attacks in Syria that happened in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016? Why was Trump's attack morally necessary but Obama's inaction acceptable?
Launching an attack against a military base in another sovereign nation is absolutely an act of war. How is the US military deliberately attacking the Syrian military not an act of war?
It's also a possibility that opposition forces were in possession of chemical weapons and conventional bombing by the Syrian air force (which had conducted multiple bombings of that city previously) set them off. We know that opposition forces, especially ISIS have already used chemical weapons in Syria.
Frazzled wrote: Anyone arguing for it when no other nation does something, you betcha. If its not a compelling interest to the US then it should not be done.
I didn't know Neville Chamberlain had relatives in Texas.
PJ: Everything is bigger and better in Texas, including the appeasement.
ME: I don't care about 'whataboutism', I'm here and now. This happened here and now.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/07 18:50:37
2017/04/07 18:50:58
Subject: US Ships launch 60 cruise missiles at Syrian air base
I didn't know Neville Chamberlain had relatives in Texas.
If its good enough for George Washington its good enough for me, chickenhawk.
Not exactly the 18th Century, though, now is it? Somehow I don't see GW being afraid of standing up for what's right.
Okay, now I have to walk the dog, so hold the replies for me for 10 minutes, if you would. I'll provide the topic...If George Washington had a Twitter account, would he tweet in the mornings that Martha put too much starch in his uniform? Talk amongst yourselves.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/07 18:55:51
2017/04/07 18:56:03
Subject: Re:US Ships launch 60 cruise missiles at Syrian air base
BigWaaagh wrote: The only thing worse than inhaling chemical gas used in an attack on civilians is inhaling the stench of appeasement, in the face of such barbarianism, spewed from isolationist cowards living comfortably across the world.
Right, it makes so much more sense for us to send our troops over to be subjected to chemical weapon attacks and be killed and maimed while waging a fight against virtually everyone in a multi faction civil war in a country whose regime is allied with a nuclear power in order to create a power vacuum and unwinnable peace that would require decades of bloodshed and trillions of dollars in a rebuilding effort if we somehow accomplished the task without starting a nuclear war. I don't want a govt that represents ME to send my fellow citizens out to fight and die in some far away land in a conflict I would never send my children out to fight. I'm not one of the people who would be risking their lives in the name of Syrian regime change and I'm not going to saber rattle to send others to fight futile battles that I wouldn't fight. There are multiple veterans who live in my neighborhood, they're great guys and I wouldn't want a single one of them to have been sent out to die in the streets in Syria and I don't want a single American that's currently in the service to die in Syria either.
Once again, try and read the message before you knee jerk with the isolationist rhetoric. There needed to be a response to this horrific breach of international protocol and there was. You're already at WWIII. Take a pill.
It's not WW3 and it's not going to get to WW3. Best case Assad is disposed internally and a more moderate pro Russia despot takes his place. Everyone gets to check off the "regime change" box and we move on. Worst case Russia continues to stand by Assad and we continue with the intermittent bombing anytime Trump thinks popular opinion supports it and political points can be scored. We're not going to actually start a war with a nuclear power over Syria. The juice isn't worth the squeeze for us by a long shot.
Yeah, but that's not really what you've been saying here, is it? You've been ranting on about the escalation scenario when just the opposite is true. The response was measured and it did rattle the saber, which can work just fine, thank you, but you're harping on about US troops strolling through the suburbs of Damascus while drawing down the ire of a nuclear power. THIS WAS A MEASURED RESPONSE TO THE USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS WHICH ARE A NO-NO TO THE WHOLE FETHING WORLD, not us declaring war on Syria or escalating or taking on Russia. It is what it is, nothing more. Doing nothing in the face of this ultimate atrocity is not an option, frankly. Furthermore...and I don't see how anybody can't see this...I think the Chems were used purposefully because Trump has been vocally "meh" about Syrian involvement/interest. Kind of reminds me when GHWB gave what was interpreted as a verbal green light to Saddam to invade Kuwait. This is the nature of dictators. They're opportunists and have no compulsion about ruthlessness in the execution of the opportunistic nature.
I don't recall Obama launching cruise missiles during the multiple instances of chemical weapon attacks in Syria during the last 6 years. Why was it ok for Obama to not blast Syrian airfields? Did the OT have threads about the chemical weapons attacks in Syria that happened in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016? Why was Trump's attack morally necessary but Obama's inaction acceptable?
Launching an attack against a military base in another sovereign nation is absolutely an act of war. How is the US military deliberately attacking the Syrian military not an act of war?
It's also a possibility that opposition forces were in possession of chemical weapons and conventional bombing by the Syrian air force (which had conducted multiple bombings of that city previously) set them off. We know that opposition forces, especially ISIS have already used chemical weapons in Syria.
Frazzled wrote: Anyone arguing for it when no other nation does something, you betcha. If its not a compelling interest to the US then it should not be done.
I didn't know Neville Chamberlain had relatives in Texas.
PJ: Everything is bigger and better in Texas, including the appeasement.
ME: I don't care about 'whataboutism', I'm here and now. This happened here and now.
How is what I posted "whataboutism'? You seem 100% convinced that Assad was the one who deployed the chemical weapons when we also know for a fact that ISIS has used chemical weapons in Syria. That's not whataboutism, that's reasonable doubt for accepting the narrative of the attack at face value. Likewise, the fact that during THIS SAME CONFLICT Obama, as PotUS chose NOT to launch missiles at Syrian military bases in retaliation for any of the 8+ prior instances when Assad used chemical weapons. The same conflict, that same parties involved, the same atrocity committed yet you want to dismiss it as whataboutism?
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2017/04/07 18:56:23
Subject: US Ships launch 60 cruise missiles at Syrian air base
BrotherGecko wrote: I can't wait until we target infrastructure in Syria and get a right good ole humanitarian crisis going....for humanity.
I imagine this is a one shot deal. CNN will be showing something else soon enough and distractions from certain..issues had to be done. On the positive it may backfoot NK for a bit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Because O was a huge simpering vagina when it came to foreign policy?
You have to admit "the Chicago Way" has evolved a bit. It used to be tommy guns from a Model T, now its a your own personal drone straight up de yumpa.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/07 18:57:57
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2017/04/07 19:21:26
Subject: Re:US Ships launch 60 cruise missiles at Syrian air base
So someone I despise does something I agree with. But its probably for the wrong reasons and is likely to little to late to make a difference other than making the whole mess worse? Gahhh so conflicted
2017/04/07 19:26:30
Subject: Re:US Ships launch 60 cruise missiles at Syrian air base
BigWaaagh wrote: The only thing worse than inhaling chemical gas used in an attack on civilians is inhaling the stench of appeasement, in the face of such barbarianism, spewed from isolationist cowards living comfortably across the world.
Right, it makes so much more sense for us to send our troops over to be subjected to chemical weapon attacks and be killed and maimed while waging a fight against virtually everyone in a multi faction civil war in a country whose regime is allied with a nuclear power in order to create a power vacuum and unwinnable peace that would require decades of bloodshed and trillions of dollars in a rebuilding effort if we somehow accomplished the task without starting a nuclear war. I don't want a govt that represents ME to send my fellow citizens out to fight and die in some far away land in a conflict I would never send my children out to fight. I'm not one of the people who would be risking their lives in the name of Syrian regime change and I'm not going to saber rattle to send others to fight futile battles that I wouldn't fight. There are multiple veterans who live in my neighborhood, they're great guys and I wouldn't want a single one of them to have been sent out to die in the streets in Syria and I don't want a single American that's currently in the service to die in Syria either.
Once again, try and read the message before you knee jerk with the isolationist rhetoric. There needed to be a response to this horrific breach of international protocol and there was. You're already at WWIII. Take a pill.
It's not WW3 and it's not going to get to WW3. Best case Assad is disposed internally and a more moderate pro Russia despot takes his place. Everyone gets to check off the "regime change" box and we move on. Worst case Russia continues to stand by Assad and we continue with the intermittent bombing anytime Trump thinks popular opinion supports it and political points can be scored. We're not going to actually start a war with a nuclear power over Syria. The juice isn't worth the squeeze for us by a long shot.
Yeah, but that's not really what you've been saying here, is it? You've been ranting on about the escalation scenario when just the opposite is true. The response was measured and it did rattle the saber, which can work just fine, thank you, but you're harping on about US troops strolling through the suburbs of Damascus while drawing down the ire of a nuclear power. THIS WAS A MEASURED RESPONSE TO THE USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS WHICH ARE A NO-NO TO THE WHOLE FETHING WORLD, not us declaring war on Syria or escalating or taking on Russia. It is what it is, nothing more. Doing nothing in the face of this ultimate atrocity is not an option, frankly. Furthermore...and I don't see how anybody can't see this...I think the Chems were used purposefully because Trump has been vocally "meh" about Syrian involvement/interest. Kind of reminds me when GHWB gave what was interpreted as a verbal green light to Saddam to invade Kuwait. This is the nature of dictators. They're opportunists and have no compulsion about ruthlessness in the execution of the opportunistic nature.
I don't recall Obama launching cruise missiles during the multiple instances of chemical weapon attacks in Syria during the last 6 years. Why was it ok for Obama to not blast Syrian airfields? Did the OT have threads about the chemical weapons attacks in Syria that happened in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016? Why was Trump's attack morally necessary but Obama's inaction acceptable?
Launching an attack against a military base in another sovereign nation is absolutely an act of war. How is the US military deliberately attacking the Syrian military not an act of war?
It's also a possibility that opposition forces were in possession of chemical weapons and conventional bombing by the Syrian air force (which had conducted multiple bombings of that city previously) set them off. We know that opposition forces, especially ISIS have already used chemical weapons in Syria.
Frazzled wrote: Anyone arguing for it when no other nation does something, you betcha. If its not a compelling interest to the US then it should not be done.
I didn't know Neville Chamberlain had relatives in Texas.
PJ: Everything is bigger and better in Texas, including the appeasement.
ME: I don't care about 'whataboutism', I'm here and now. This happened here and now.
[/spoiler]
PJ: How is what I posted "whataboutism'? You seem 100% convinced that Assad was the one who deployed the chemical weapons when we also know for a fact that ISIS has used chemical weapons in Syria. That's not whataboutism, that's reasonable doubt for accepting the narrative of the attack at face value. Likewise, the fact that during THIS SAME CONFLICT Obama, as PotUS chose NOT to launch missiles at Syrian military bases in retaliation for any of the 8+ prior instances when Assad used chemical weapons. The same conflict, that same parties involved, the same atrocity committed yet you want to dismiss it as whataboutism?
ME: Until I hear otherwise, Assad has the history of using Chemical Weapons on his own people and this occurred during a Syrian air strike. I'm not going to guesstimate that something else happened. If it's proven that this is not the case, then my position adapts accordingly. As far as "whataboutism", just park the Obama reference please. That's a whole other argument that goes into the fact that he approached Congress about Syrian actions and was summarily given the big 'No'. So, yeah, whataboutism is relevant and that Obama sidetrack really doesn't hold up. Nor, once again, are we debating the merits of an action by Obama, are we?
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/04/07 19:42:44
2017/04/07 19:50:09
Subject: Re:US Ships launch 60 cruise missiles at Syrian air base
GoatboyBeta wrote: So someone I despise does something I agree with. But its probably for the wrong reasons and is likely to little to late to make a difference other than making the whole mess worse? Gahhh so conflicted
I understand the reasons given for making the strike but I'm in the undecided crowd about if it was the correct response. I've been vocal in the past about supporting the Kurds in Iraq and Syria and think that helping them would be the best option for us. I'd honestly like to see President Trump do more on that front than make missile strikes that could end up helping the ISIL types in the area.
2017/04/07 19:53:43
Subject: Re:US Ships launch 60 cruise missiles at Syrian air base
BigWaaagh wrote: The only thing worse than inhaling chemical gas used in an attack on civilians is inhaling the stench of appeasement, in the face of such barbarianism, spewed from isolationist cowards living comfortably across the world.
Right, it makes so much more sense for us to send our troops over to be subjected to chemical weapon attacks and be killed and maimed while waging a fight against virtually everyone in a multi faction civil war in a country whose regime is allied with a nuclear power in order to create a power vacuum and unwinnable peace that would require decades of bloodshed and trillions of dollars in a rebuilding effort if we somehow accomplished the task without starting a nuclear war. I don't want a govt that represents ME to send my fellow citizens out to fight and die in some far away land in a conflict I would never send my children out to fight. I'm not one of the people who would be risking their lives in the name of Syrian regime change and I'm not going to saber rattle to send others to fight futile battles that I wouldn't fight. There are multiple veterans who live in my neighborhood, they're great guys and I wouldn't want a single one of them to have been sent out to die in the streets in Syria and I don't want a single American that's currently in the service to die in Syria either.
Once again, try and read the message before you knee jerk with the isolationist rhetoric. There needed to be a response to this horrific breach of international protocol and there was. You're already at WWIII. Take a pill.
It's not WW3 and it's not going to get to WW3. Best case Assad is disposed internally and a more moderate pro Russia despot takes his place. Everyone gets to check off the "regime change" box and we move on. Worst case Russia continues to stand by Assad and we continue with the intermittent bombing anytime Trump thinks popular opinion supports it and political points can be scored. We're not going to actually start a war with a nuclear power over Syria. The juice isn't worth the squeeze for us by a long shot.
Yeah, but that's not really what you've been saying here, is it? You've been ranting on about the escalation scenario when just the opposite is true. The response was measured and it did rattle the saber, which can work just fine, thank you, but you're harping on about US troops strolling through the suburbs of Damascus while drawing down the ire of a nuclear power. THIS WAS A MEASURED RESPONSE TO THE USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS WHICH ARE A NO-NO TO THE WHOLE FETHING WORLD, not us declaring war on Syria or escalating or taking on Russia. It is what it is, nothing more. Doing nothing in the face of this ultimate atrocity is not an option, frankly. Furthermore...and I don't see how anybody can't see this...I think the Chems were used purposefully because Trump has been vocally "meh" about Syrian involvement/interest. Kind of reminds me when GHWB gave what was interpreted as a verbal green light to Saddam to invade Kuwait. This is the nature of dictators. They're opportunists and have no compulsion about ruthlessness in the execution of the opportunistic nature.
I don't recall Obama launching cruise missiles during the multiple instances of chemical weapon attacks in Syria during the last 6 years. Why was it ok for Obama to not blast Syrian airfields? Did the OT have threads about the chemical weapons attacks in Syria that happened in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016? Why was Trump's attack morally necessary but Obama's inaction acceptable?
Launching an attack against a military base in another sovereign nation is absolutely an act of war. How is the US military deliberately attacking the Syrian military not an act of war?
It's also a possibility that opposition forces were in possession of chemical weapons and conventional bombing by the Syrian air force (which had conducted multiple bombings of that city previously) set them off. We know that opposition forces, especially ISIS have already used chemical weapons in Syria.
Frazzled wrote: Anyone arguing for it when no other nation does something, you betcha. If its not a compelling interest to the US then it should not be done.
I didn't know Neville Chamberlain had relatives in Texas.
PJ: Everything is bigger and better in Texas, including the appeasement.
ME: I don't care about 'whataboutism', I'm here and now. This happened here and now.
[/spoiler]
PJ: How is what I posted "whataboutism'? You seem 100% convinced that Assad was the one who deployed the chemical weapons when we also know for a fact that ISIS has used chemical weapons in Syria. That's not whataboutism, that's reasonable doubt for accepting the narrative of the attack at face value. Likewise, the fact that during THIS SAME CONFLICT Obama, as PotUS chose NOT to launch missiles at Syrian military bases in retaliation for any of the 8+ prior instances when Assad used chemical weapons. The same conflict, that same parties involved, the same atrocity committed yet you want to dismiss it as whataboutism?
ME: Until I hear otherwise, Assad has the history of using Chemical Weapons on his own people and this occurred during a Syrian air strike. I'm not going to guesstimate that something else happened. If it's proven that this is not the case, then my position adapts accordingly. As far as "whataboutism", just park the Obama reference please. That's a whole other argument that goes into the fact that he approached Congress about Syrian actions and was summarily given the big 'No'. So, yeah, whataboutism is relevant and that Obama sidetrack really doesn't hold up. Nor, once again, are we debating the merits of an action by Obama, are we?
We're discussing Trump's decision to attack a Syrian military installation and your support for that action. The support you are lending to the current PotUS is based on the same arguments used to criticize the previous PotUS that you liked but didn't condemn. I didn't condemn Obama'-s inaction either but I'm not praising Trump's action now.
I'm trying to impose some consistency onto your argument regarding the point in contention, that Trump had to act NOW. I don't think he did and I think it is pertinent to point out that in the previous instances of this same atrocity in the same conflict in the same theater the PotUS/US didn't respond with an attack against Syrian military installations. IMHO acts of war should only be ordered after Congress issues a declaration of war s that the PotUS acts with the consent of the people. I don't think anything in this most recent incidence of a chemical weapon attack by Assad (I'll agree to concede to your point to accept the official story until proven otherwise to resolve that tangent) had any significant difference to previous ones that warrant a different response. I don't see why you think this incidence requires a new and escalated retaliation.
GoatboyBeta wrote: So someone I despise does something I agree with. But its probably for the wrong reasons and is likely to little to late to make a difference other than making the whole mess worse? Gahhh so conflicted
I understand the reasons given for making the strike but I'm in the undecided crowd about if it was the correct response. I've been vocal in the past about supporting the Kurds in Iraq and Syria and think that helping them would be the best option for us. I'd honestly like to see President Trump do more on that front than make missile strikes that could end up helping the ISIL types in the area.
Helping the Kurds creates the problem that neither the govt in Iraq that we helped found and still support or the increasingly theocratic govt in Turkey our NATO ally want to cede any land to the sovereignty of the Kurds but creating a Kurdistan is a primary Kurdish goal.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/07 20:01:04
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2017/04/07 20:07:08
Subject: Re:US Ships launch 60 cruise missiles at Syrian air base
BigWaaagh wrote: The only thing worse than inhaling chemical gas used in an attack on civilians is inhaling the stench of appeasement, in the face of such barbarianism, spewed from isolationist cowards living comfortably across the world.
Right, it makes so much more sense for us to send our troops over to be subjected to chemical weapon attacks and be killed and maimed while waging a fight against virtually everyone in a multi faction civil war in a country whose regime is allied with a nuclear power in order to create a power vacuum and unwinnable peace that would require decades of bloodshed and trillions of dollars in a rebuilding effort if we somehow accomplished the task without starting a nuclear war. I don't want a govt that represents ME to send my fellow citizens out to fight and die in some far away land in a conflict I would never send my children out to fight. I'm not one of the people who would be risking their lives in the name of Syrian regime change and I'm not going to saber rattle to send others to fight futile battles that I wouldn't fight. There are multiple veterans who live in my neighborhood, they're great guys and I wouldn't want a single one of them to have been sent out to die in the streets in Syria and I don't want a single American that's currently in the service to die in Syria either.
Once again, try and read the message before you knee jerk with the isolationist rhetoric. There needed to be a response to this horrific breach of international protocol and there was. You're already at WWIII. Take a pill.
It's not WW3 and it's not going to get to WW3. Best case Assad is disposed internally and a more moderate pro Russia despot takes his place. Everyone gets to check off the "regime change" box and we move on. Worst case Russia continues to stand by Assad and we continue with the intermittent bombing anytime Trump thinks popular opinion supports it and political points can be scored. We're not going to actually start a war with a nuclear power over Syria. The juice isn't worth the squeeze for us by a long shot.
Yeah, but that's not really what you've been saying here, is it? You've been ranting on about the escalation scenario when just the opposite is true. The response was measured and it did rattle the saber, which can work just fine, thank you, but you're harping on about US troops strolling through the suburbs of Damascus while drawing down the ire of a nuclear power. THIS WAS A MEASURED RESPONSE TO THE USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS WHICH ARE A NO-NO TO THE WHOLE FETHING WORLD, not us declaring war on Syria or escalating or taking on Russia. It is what it is, nothing more. Doing nothing in the face of this ultimate atrocity is not an option, frankly. Furthermore...and I don't see how anybody can't see this...I think the Chems were used purposefully because Trump has been vocally "meh" about Syrian involvement/interest. Kind of reminds me when GHWB gave what was interpreted as a verbal green light to Saddam to invade Kuwait. This is the nature of dictators. They're opportunists and have no compulsion about ruthlessness in the execution of the opportunistic nature.
I don't recall Obama launching cruise missiles during the multiple instances of chemical weapon attacks in Syria during the last 6 years. Why was it ok for Obama to not blast Syrian airfields? Did the OT have threads about the chemical weapons attacks in Syria that happened in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016? Why was Trump's attack morally necessary but Obama's inaction acceptable?
Launching an attack against a military base in another sovereign nation is absolutely an act of war. How is the US military deliberately attacking the Syrian military not an act of war?
It's also a possibility that opposition forces were in possession of chemical weapons and conventional bombing by the Syrian air force (which had conducted multiple bombings of that city previously) set them off. We know that opposition forces, especially ISIS have already used chemical weapons in Syria.
Frazzled wrote: Anyone arguing for it when no other nation does something, you betcha. If its not a compelling interest to the US then it should not be done.
I didn't know Neville Chamberlain had relatives in Texas.
PJ: Everything is bigger and better in Texas, including the appeasement.
ME: I don't care about 'whataboutism', I'm here and now. This happened here and now.
[/spoiler]
PJ: How is what I posted "whataboutism'? You seem 100% convinced that Assad was the one who deployed the chemical weapons when we also know for a fact that ISIS has used chemical weapons in Syria. That's not whataboutism, that's reasonable doubt for accepting the narrative of the attack at face value. Likewise, the fact that during THIS SAME CONFLICT Obama, as PotUS chose NOT to launch missiles at Syrian military bases in retaliation for any of the 8+ prior instances when Assad used chemical weapons. The same conflict, that same parties involved, the same atrocity committed yet you want to dismiss it as whataboutism?
ME: Until I hear otherwise, Assad has the history of using Chemical Weapons on his own people and this occurred during a Syrian air strike. I'm not going to guesstimate that something else happened. If it's proven that this is not the case, then my position adapts accordingly. As far as "whataboutism", just park the Obama reference please. That's a whole other argument that goes into the fact that he approached Congress about Syrian actions and was summarily given the big 'No'. So, yeah, whataboutism is relevant and that Obama sidetrack really doesn't hold up. Nor, once again, are we debating the merits of an action by Obama, are we?
PJ: We're discussing Trump's decision to attack a Syrian military installation and your support for that action. The support you are lending to the current PotUS is based on the same arguments used to criticize the previous PotUS that you liked but didn't condemn. I didn't condemn Obama'-s inaction either but I'm not praising Trump's action now.
I'm trying to impose some consistency onto your argument regarding the point in contention, that Trump had to act NOW. I don't think he did and I think it is pertinent to point out that in the previous instances of this same atrocity in the same conflict in the same theater the PotUS/US didn't respond with an attack against Syrian military installations. IMHO acts of war should only be ordered after Congress issues a declaration of war s that the PotUS acts with the consent of the people. I don't think anything in this most recent incidence of a chemical weapon attack by Assad (I'll agree to concede to your point to accept the official story until proven otherwise to resolve that tangent) had any significant difference to previous ones that warrant a different response. I don't see why you think this incidence requires a new and escalated retaliation.
.
ME: What the hell are you talking about? Consistency? Fine, let's do the "whataboutism" shuffle *sigh*. Obama wanted to do...and should have done...exactly what Trump did. Chemical weapons use, or any other WMD use, is a red line that shouldn't be crossed without consequences. Obama had ships deployed and positioned in the Med to strike after Assad's use of Chemical Weapons but he backed down in the face of Congressional opposition. So instead, he then chose the route of backing the...obviously now, alleged...Russian agreement to get Syria to dismantle it's Chemical stockpile. He should have hit Assad then as Trump has hit him now. A measured, precision hit that targeted the airfield where the alleged planes that conducted the strike took off from.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/07 20:14:24
2017/04/07 20:10:48
Subject: Re:US Ships launch 60 cruise missiles at Syrian air base
ME(I suck at editing): Who's gone to war? We declared war? This was a measured response to a specific action.
we didnt declare war in Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Korea, Panama, etc either...
And for the last time, if you don't get the whole concept of WMD's being categorically different and condemned in the eyes of the entire world than conventional warfare, then you're not getting the point and purpose of the action, or this thread.
I get that people treat them differently, but I also understand why and its not really just because "oh theyre so bad" relative to other weapons.
I also get that Assad has done much worse, violating other taboos and treaties and the like, repeatedly, and there was never any talk of bombings or missiles or sending in troops or red lines.
Your response has just been "everyone signed papers that says chemical weapons are bad", and I get that, but they also said as much about bombing civilians, bull dozing them alive, torturing them, killing prisoners, starving them to death, etc. What makes gas so special as to illicit this response when the others did not?
I'm not debating that chemical weapons are seen as taboo and bad. Im not debating that Assad is a bad dude for doing these things. Im arguing that choosing this to act on over dozens of other equally or even more horrifying things is opportunistically arbitrary, being seized on for no real reason over anything else.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/07 20:12:24
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
2017/04/07 20:13:16
Subject: Re:US Ships launch 60 cruise missiles at Syrian air base
GoatboyBeta wrote: So someone I despise does something I agree with. But its probably for the wrong reasons and is likely to little to late to make a difference other than making the whole mess worse? Gahhh so conflicted
I understand the reasons given for making the strike but I'm in the undecided crowd about if it was the correct response. I've been vocal in the past about supporting the Kurds in Iraq and Syria and think that helping them would be the best option for us. I'd honestly like to see President Trump do more on that front than make missile strikes that could end up helping the ISIL types in the area.
Helping the Kurds creates the problem that neither the govt in Iraq that we helped found and still support or the increasingly theocratic govt in Turkey our NATO ally want to cede any land to the sovereignty of the Kurds but creating a Kurdistan is a primary Kurdish goal.
This is very true. I guess I stand apart from US foreign policy in that I actually wouldn't mind seeing a Kurdish state created. It seems the best outcome given the (lack of) character of our other allies in the immediate region.
2017/04/07 20:15:42
Subject: Re:US Ships launch 60 cruise missiles at Syrian air base
ME(I suck at editing): Who's gone to war? We declared war? This was a measured response to a specific action.
we didnt declare war in Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Korea, Panama, etc either...
And for the last time, if you don't get the whole concept of WMD's being categorically different and condemned in the eyes of the entire world than conventional warfare, then you're not getting the point and purpose of the action, or this thread.
I get that people treat them differently, but I also understand why and its not really just because "oh theyre so bad" relative to other weapons.
I also get that Assad has done much worse, violating other taboos and treaties and the like, repeatedly, and there was never any talk of bombings or missiles or sending in troops or red lines.
Your response has just been "everyone signed papers that says chemical weapons are bad", and I get that, but they also said as much about bombing civilians, bull dozing them alive, torturing them, killing prisoners, starving them to death, etc. What makes gas so special as to illicit this response when the others did not?
I'm not debating that chemical weapons are seen as taboo and bad. Im not debating that Assad is a bad dude for doing these things. Im arguing that choosing this to act on over dozens of other equally or even more horrifying things is opportunistically arbitrary, being seized on for no real reason over anything else.
"Opportunistically arbitrary"...You just do not get it...at all.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/07 20:18:43
2017/04/07 20:17:42
Subject: Re:US Ships launch 60 cruise missiles at Syrian air base
GoatboyBeta wrote: So someone I despise does something I agree with. But its probably for the wrong reasons and is likely to little to late to make a difference other than making the whole mess worse? Gahhh so conflicted
I understand the reasons given for making the strike but I'm in the undecided crowd about if it was the correct response. I've been vocal in the past about supporting the Kurds in Iraq and Syria and think that helping them would be the best option for us. I'd honestly like to see President Trump do more on that front than make missile strikes that could end up helping the ISIL types in the area.
Helping the Kurds creates the problem that neither the govt in Iraq that we helped found and still support or the increasingly theocratic govt in Turkey our NATO ally want to cede any land to the sovereignty of the Kurds but creating a Kurdistan is a primary Kurdish goal.
This is very true. I guess I stand apart from US foreign policy in that I actually wouldn't mind seeing a Kurdish state created. It seems the best outcome given the (lack of) character of our other allies in the immediate region.
Going to Iraq and Turkey and telling them we're taking their land and giving it to the Kurds because we decided that's best is a very heavy handed approach that would damage our influence in the region create more ill will towards us and be eerily similar to how the U.K. Decision to carve up the ME back in the day helped entrench all the instability in the region.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2017/04/07 20:23:49
Subject: Re:US Ships launch 60 cruise missiles at Syrian air base
ME(I suck at editing): Who's gone to war? We declared war? This was a measured response to a specific action.
we didnt declare war in Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Korea, Panama, etc either...
And for the last time, if you don't get the whole concept of WMD's being categorically different and condemned in the eyes of the entire world than conventional warfare, then you're not getting the point and purpose of the action, or this thread.
I get that people treat them differently, but I also understand why and its not really just because "oh theyre so bad" relative to other weapons.
I also get that Assad has done much worse, violating other taboos and treaties and the like, repeatedly, and there was never any talk of bombings or missiles or sending in troops or red lines.
Your response has just been "everyone signed papers that says chemical weapons are bad", and I get that, but they also said as much about bombing civilians, bull dozing them alive, torturing them, killing prisoners, starving them to death, etc. What makes gas so special as to illicit this response when the others did not?
I'm not debating that chemical weapons are seen as taboo and bad. Im not debating that Assad is a bad dude for doing these things. Im arguing that choosing this to act on over dozens of other equally or even more horrifying things is opportunistically arbitrary, being seized on for no real reason over anything else.
"Opportunistically arbitrary"...You just do not get it...at all.
I guess not.
Answer this question. What about small scale use of chemical weapon is so much worse than any of the other stuff that has been listed, that it deserves or requires this response?
Are they more horrific than other weapons? Do they induce greater suffering? Do they kill more people? Not really.
Are they against more treaties or declarations or statements than any one of tens of thousands of other crimes comitted by Assads regime? Nope.
Are those uses of chemical weapons some sort of threat to the US or other nations? Nope.
What makes the small scale use of chemical weapons in this case deserving of a military response where horrific torture, mass murder, explosive and incendiary bombing of civilians, etc did not?
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
2017/04/07 20:28:15
Subject: US Ships launch 60 cruise missiles at Syrian air base
Is there reason to believe that Trump's missile salvo will have a lasting tangible impact on the further use of chemical weapons? Is this the action that finally teaches Assad or his generals the lesson not to do it again or do we think we'll see chemical weapons deployed again in the future?
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2017/04/07 20:33:21
Subject: Re:US Ships launch 60 cruise missiles at Syrian air base
Answer this question. What about small scale use of chemical weapon is so much worse than any of the other stuff that has been listed, that it deserves or requires this response? Yes. Allowed and it creates a precedent for WMD usage.
Are they more horrific than other weapons? Do they induce greater suffering? Do they kill more people? Not really. Are you kidding? Yes, for feth's sake, yes.
Are they against more treaties or declarations or statements than any one of tens of thousands of other crimes comitted by Assads regime? Nope. You're missing the point. There's these other things called "war crimes", equally condemned by the international community and they have a dedicated means of being addressed as well.
Are those uses of chemical weapons some sort of threat to the US or other nations? Nope. That's a pretty weak litmus test. Ever heard of the Sarin attacks in Japan?
What makes the small scale use of chemical weapons in this case deserving of a military response where horrific torture, mass murder, explosive and incendiary bombing of civilians, etc did not? It's "small scale", so who cares. I'm pretty sure any of these gas attack victims will say there's no such thing as a "small" whiff of Sarin. Come on! Enough with the laundry list of horrors, nobody is lessening them, but we're talking exclusively about the use of WMD's.
Nope, you just don't get it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: Is there reason to believe that Trump's missile salvo will have a lasting tangible impact on the further use of chemical weapons? Is this the action that finally teaches Assad or his generals the lesson not to do it again or do we think we'll see chemical weapons deployed again in the future?
I can tell you for certain how not responding has worked.*
*Please see story behind thread.
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2017/04/07 20:54:15
2017/04/07 20:52:14
Subject: US Ships launch 60 cruise missiles at Syrian air base
Are they more horrific? Moreso than burning alive? Moreso than bleeding to death for hours with ruptured organs and shattered bones from gunfire? Moreso than having your body torn to pieces by explosives? Moreso than being bulldozed or run over by a tank while alive? Moreso than starving to death amidst the corpses of your friends, family and the rubble of your home? Moreso than being buried alive?
That would seem to be a rather subjective issue in such light.
Do they induce greater suffering? Again, next to the common deaths above...probably not.
Do they kill more people than other weapons? There is 0 data to suppport that position, and lots that says exactly the opposite. Their effect is primarily psychological, not that they kill great loads of people. Casualties ascribed to gas are amongst some of the lowest kill rates of major weapons systems in WW1 for instance. Gas is nasty, but the biggest practical effect is not the casualties, it is forcing the burden of protective measures and their associated costs and enforced inefficiencies that really have thr biggest impact.
So, no, I'm not kidding.
[/b] Are they against more treaties or declarations or statements than any one of tens of thousands of other crimes comitted by Assads regime? Nope.
You're so wrong. There's these other things called "war crimes", equally condemned by the international community and they have a dedicated means of being addressed as well.
aaaand how are those war crimes different than this war crime? This is the fundamental point you are dancing around and not directly addressing. They're all war crimes. What makes chemical weapons use worse than any number of other things Assad has done?
Are those uses of chemical weapons some sort of threat to the US or other nations? Nope.
Unbelievably weak litmus test. Ever heard of the Sarin attacks in Japan?
I have, what does Assads use of such weapons have to do with a gas attack on the other side of the planet 20 years ago?
It's "small scale", so who cares. Say, why not take just a small whiff of Sarin and tell me what you think?
you are intentionally misrepresenting what I meant by "small scale".
My point was that there is no appearance that this was conclusively done by Assad (wouldnt be the first time the US got it wrong on WMD's...), or that it is a coherent and organized method of attack by Assads forces in widespread use and operation as standard procedure. It could be a rogue commander, it could.be a false flag, it could be any number of things, and in long brutal conflicts all sorts of terrible things tend to get used and done at least a few times even if its not on direct higher command from the top.
Unlike dropping barrel bombs on apartment blocks and shelling towns and butchering prisoners and torture by the state security services, all of which are widespread organized practices by the Assad regime, that nobody saw fit to use military force to stop, and all of which are just as much against international law and agreements.
Nope, you just don't get it.
No, you're just refusing to directly address my point by pivoting to moral outrage instead of answering why chemical weapons use is so much worse than just shooting and bombing civilians to death was...
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
2017/04/07 20:57:53
Subject: US Ships launch 60 cruise missiles at Syrian air base
BigWaaagh wrote: The only thing worse than inhaling chemical gas used in an attack on civilians is inhaling the stench of appeasement, in the face of such barbarianism, spewed from isolationist cowards living comfortably across the world.
Right, it makes so much more sense for us to send our troops over to be subjected to chemical weapon attacks and be killed and maimed while waging a fight against virtually everyone in a multi faction civil war in a country whose regime is allied with a nuclear power in order to create a power vacuum and unwinnable peace that would require decades of bloodshed and trillions of dollars in a rebuilding effort if we somehow accomplished the task without starting a nuclear war. I don't want a govt that represents ME to send my fellow citizens out to fight and die in some far away land in a conflict I would never send my children out to fight. I'm not one of the people who would be risking their lives in the name of Syrian regime change and I'm not going to saber rattle to send others to fight futile battles that I wouldn't fight. There are multiple veterans who live in my neighborhood, they're great guys and I wouldn't want a single one of them to have been sent out to die in the streets in Syria and I don't want a single American that's currently in the service to die in Syria either.
Once again, try and read the message before you knee jerk with the isolationist rhetoric. There needed to be a response to this horrific breach of international protocol and there was. You're already at WWIII. Take a pill.
As opposed to parroting that 70 year old Big Lie of "isolationism".
The United States has never been, nor ever will be, an "isolationist" nation.
The correct term for our stance prior to World War II was non-interventionist under the guise of neutrality. With some exceptions, like problems south of the border (on our very doorstep), our stance was similar to Switzerland and Sweden on the world stage. As opposed to being like North Korea, the closest thing in the world today to being a true isolationist power.
That being said, if Syria was a signatory nation to any international treaties barring use of chemical warfare, then I would say that this surgical strike was justified. If not, then it was an act of aggression on the part of the United States.
Proud Purveyor Of The Unconventional In 40k
2017/04/07 21:01:09
Subject: Re:US Ships launch 60 cruise missiles at Syrian air base
Prestor Jon wrote: Is there reason to believe that Trump's missile salvo will have a lasting tangible impact on the further use of chemical weapons? Is this the action that finally teaches Assad or his generals the lesson not to do it again or do we think we'll see chemical weapons deployed again in the future?
I can tell you for certain how not responding has worked.*
*Please see story behind thread.
So now the argument is that ineffectual $100 million missile salvos are more meaningful than ineffectual economic sanctions? Although it is nice to see you admit that we chose not to respond with cruise missile for any of the previous 8+ chemical attacks over the last 6 years. I guess those attacks were somehow less awful than this one.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/07 21:02:30
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2017/04/07 21:06:03
Subject: US Ships launch 60 cruise missiles at Syrian air base
Something that concerns me greatly about all this is that we don't know exactly who dropped the gas.
I mean, it was someone with access to fighter jets and weapons-grade chemical weapons, which does eliminate some factions (ISIS, for example).
But the fact that we started bombing before the culprit was determined is pretty irresponsible, to me.
And it's certainly possible the US military knows something I don't about the attack, but from my point of view it seems we started bombing before we knew for certain who did it.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/04/07 21:14:35
"Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment." Words to live by.
