And America is unilaterally the world police because...?
CNBC: US military has launched more than 50 missiles aimed at Syria: NBC News
- Thread starter mackaveli
- Start date
- Status
And America is unilaterally the world police because...?
MisterFalcon
Member
What is also interesting is that Russia was supposed to have made Syria immune to these kind of attacks with their super duper S-300 missiles. And despite having been given a warning of the attack they failed to stop it.
Fine Ham Abounds
Member
For the record, I don't believe Trump can play 7th dimensional chess. I do believe he is a dangerous narcissist, his administration is compromised at every level, and sometimes the world throws evil people an opportunity for action without conspiracy being necessary.
NATO, an anti-Russia organization with a leading member that has committed war crimes itself is going to charge Assad as a war criminalIf US plays this right it's a good call.
- A missile strike to warn Syria to cut the bullshit.
- proceed with NATO inspections to build up a case to charge Assad as a war criminal.
Unfortunately I think it will just end with this strike.
Lol
At least let the UN do it.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
While I personally believe that they didn't want to, it's also probably cheaper to tell the Syrians to bail out on the air base than intercept 60 cruise missiles.
jakonovski
Member
Trump approval rate skyrockets with every dead Syrian.
FlutterPuffs
Member
They might choose not to use the S-300 missiles so it doesn't escalate the whole thing though.
If Russia shoots the missiles down it would mean that a line is drawn and a war is at hand.
I'm not a Trump defender, but using of chemical weapons is not an unreasonable red line to have.
It's fine to argue that our bar should be lower than that*, but I think the fact that the international community think of chemical weapon as something that is inherently worse than the use of conventional weapons is not a bad thing.
* I think it probably should, but that really depends on whether or not you have a plan that can work. Doing something just because "something has to be done" is not a smart policy in my mind, but that's a separate discussion.
DXB-KNIGHT
Member
So far Only Iran officially condemned the strike,
Russia is beating around the bush.
Russia is beating around the bush.
Short and sweet answer is because America can do so, and many of the world powers/leaders expect it to be so.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
Personally it needs to be thought of a step further. Syria is a failed state. There will never be peace as long as Assad is in power. To that point all he will do is radicalize and create new bands of terrorists due to his slaughter of his people. Syria needs to be largely rebuilt and Assad has neither the will or means to do so. The various opposition groups have no real framework and will to govern in a manner better than Assad.
Syria really needs a long term nation building and peacekeeping effort. Sadly the body that should be on the front in this is completely powerless to respond.
Golden_Pigeon
Banned
It would reflect the position of the UN if there were not a security council.
So in this case, it's actually doing what most of the world is wanting to do but can't because Russia. Nothing to do with Iraq.
Irishmantis
Member
Man this thread has me extremely anxious every time it gets bumped
That was not my intention. Not at all. Syria has been bad for a while.(There is a reason for them fleeing) Kids were dying horribly and suddenly these particular images provoke something in him that others did not.
Im picking up what you are putting down though. This strike just seems pointless in my opinion.
Why not diplomacy first? Sanctions? Something.
We're not going to war.
DXB-KNIGHT
Member
France reacts: Future of #Syria is not with Assad; Americans are beginning to clarify their position, says FM Ayrault.-@Reuters
FlutterPuffs
Member
Yeah, a brainfart for me to consider NATO. Thanks.
The point was to stop the further use of chemical weapons and nothing more. Whether or not it was executed well remains to be seen.
SMOK3Y
Generous Member
This is the problem with US why do you think other countries don't like USIf US plays this right it's a good call.
- A missile strike to WARN Syria to cut the bullshit.
- proceed with NATO inspections to build up a case to charge Assad as a war criminal.
Unfortunately I think it will just end with this strike.
Golden_Pigeon
Banned
Which people ? Not Syrians. Not Bosnians. Not Kosovars. Not Ukrainians.
As much as i despise US imperialism for what they have done to my region, i have to recognize that US military action had good effect in other context.
Well there are plenty of Syrians who hated us for not getting more involved too
So...not WWIII? Huh.
Golden_Pigeon
Banned
The problem is that Le Pen and Fillon are openly pro-Assad. But maybe their stance will change now that Trump made a 180°
King Tubby
Member
I am just extremely reluctant about use of force against targets that aren't posing a direct threat to the United States or its allies, given how many history lessons we should have learned by now about toppling abhorrent dictators without any coherent or workable strategy to deal with the power and political vacuum in the aftermath. Using chemical weapons against civilians is fucking horrendously disgusting, but does that mean we must repeat the mistakes of Iraq yet again? And under the direction of a president who makes George W Bush look like Otto von Bismarck?
jellies_two
Member
my cynical opinion is its 50:50 that assad - who doesn't take a piss without asking Putin for advice first - was asked to make a chemical weapons drop.
Assad Putin and Trump. Who can trust any of them? blow up some old MIGs. get Trump out of the ditch so that the old congressional guard like McCain can tell people to "rally around the president". Who loses in this scenario other than Trumps political opponents?
Tell me again why Assad - who doesn't make big decisions without checking with Putin - would want to waste a sarin bomb on some kids and tip the world off that he had stocks left over? why not wait for a tightly held rebel base where conventional weapons were not working.
Assad Putin and Trump. Who can trust any of them? blow up some old MIGs. get Trump out of the ditch so that the old congressional guard like McCain can tell people to "rally around the president". Who loses in this scenario other than Trumps political opponents?
Tell me again why Assad - who doesn't make big decisions without checking with Putin - would want to waste a sarin bomb on some kids and tip the world off that he had stocks left over? why not wait for a tightly held rebel base where conventional weapons were not working.
Stiflers Mom
Banned
I hate Trump like almost everybody else here, but I think he did the right thing here.
There must be a retaliation for using chemical or biological weapons.
Plus, the strike targeted a military area.
There must be a retaliation for using chemical or biological weapons.
Plus, the strike targeted a military area.
I'm not sure anybody can actually build a nation in Syria, though. Assad should probably be removed, but it's hard to see a result that isn't just another Iraq.
DXB-KNIGHT
Member
I can say that,
Even the Syrian opposition is speechless, they don't know what to say and they don't believe that this just happened.
poppedcollar69
Member
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
So the US to just stay silent about this is the more preferred action, is that what you are saying?
Obama struck a deal with Russia and Assad for disarmament of chemical weapons the last time this happened, but apparently that didn't work, did it, considering now Assad continuing to gas his people regardless?
Again, I ask you, based on your response you think it would be better for the US to do nothing, then? Or if 'do nothing' is not what you meant, what would you have preferred the US do in response to Assad's action?
I mean, it's not unilateral. If other countries want to be the world police they can just build up large militaries and do it themselves. They've chosen not to.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
And if he does it again?
perfectchaos007
Member
It seems to me like people in this thread agree that something needed to be done but they just didn't want to see the USA do it because they always do it. And that just perpetuates the whole USA is the world police mentality that supposedly is a very bad thing
FlutterPuffs
Member
Imagine that the main reason we are avoiding a WW3 situation is because the existence of a peepee tape.
One for the history books.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
GAF liberals have become 2006 neocons and alt-righters on reddit have become 2006 liberals.
Yeah, but for example people in afgahnistan and irak may not be that happy right now.
I am not fundamentally opposed to interventions, but there are many people who dont want the USA running around and get in involved in conflicts they are not directly involved and for my part I just dont trust the people who are currently in power to make smart decisions in situations like this,
The US could get a mandate from the UN and then do something.
SMOK3Y
Generous Member
Thats because they know they aren't the only country in the world
benjipwns
Banned
"Challenge accepted." - François Georges-Picot and Mark Sykes, November 1915.
I understand, however the war has been raging and the post I responded to insinuated that President Trump was somehow responsible for the dead children from the most recent chemical attack.
I've been following this conflict since the initial protests in 2011 in Aleppo and the whole country.
I hope for the best for the Syrian people but this has been such a long, bloody, drawn out war that I hope peace finds the country, and soon.
Beer Monkey
Member
The argument that Trump was manipulated into the (so far token action) strike holds as much weight as him doing the 'right thing'.
Actually, the traditional response to other belligerent countries existing is indeed to build up large military forces. Then you can tell those other countries to fuck off.
If the European Union, for example, wanted America to stop messing around in other countries they could afford to build an army and move it wherever the Americans are threatening to cause trouble. They don't, and that's intentional.
I agree with this line of thought. I think its possible.
This reminds me that I should've said nobody can build a nation in Syria except Alexander the Great.
Too bad about that guy.
- Status