DXB-KNIGHT
Member
Turkey supports the US Air strike (Turkish media)
CNBC: US military has launched more than 50 missiles aimed at Syria: NBC News
- Thread starter mackaveli
- Start date
- Status
Because we have by far more military power than anyone else?
We have navy ships floating around everywhere. We have airbases everywhere. We have troops everywhere.
We are equipped to be the world police and d trump wants to fucking INCREASE the defense budget.
We are the de facto world police because we are the only fucking country in that world that has the means to be.
If we want to be fucking chicken shits then we might as well sell off all our naval fleets, planes, fire 3/4 of our military, and call it a day.
This is a unipolar world. Honestly you don't want it to not to be because inherently there will be tension (see the Cold War on the brink of nuclear holocaust). Eventually there is going to be a major clash with China because it's unavoidable.
Europe doesn't seem to give a fuck so what the fuck should happen? Genocidal chemical weapon wielding regimes should just be able to do whatever the fuck they want unchecked?
Yeah, because whats the point in getting involved in conflicts with which you dont really have something to do? Like I said, I am not fundamentally opposed to interventions, but thats a strange argument.
Then go to the UN and get a mandate and then do the world police thing.
SMOK3Y
Generous Member
Its not other countries responsibility to tell US what to do or not do it's US's responsibility to realise that not everyone wants their ideologies forced upon them.
perfectchaos007
Member
I'm starting to believe universal healthcare and the worlds largest military are mutually exclusive. If European nations boosted their military to the size of the US's (per capita of course) then they probably wouldn't be able to take care of their citizens with healthcare. USA is the selfless country taking one for the team to protect other sovereign nations from evil regimes like Assad. Ur fuckin welcome 🌎
Unfortunately the USA has a conscience and feels guilt watching idly as Assad commits atrocities among his people. We have the means to do something about it, so if we let it continue then we are complicit as well.
You don't seem to understand how the UN works. Russia has a veto power in the Security Council.
If Assad gets outed the new guy is going to have to kill people to maintain control.
It's the only way to keep control of the population over there. Too many factions, religious or otherwise with opposing views.
Those opposing views can't be appeased with a democratic vote every few years as they all want to win at any cost. The only thing that differs slightly is what they class as winning but for the most part part each faction wants the total anhilalation of the others.
It's the only way to keep control of the population over there. Too many factions, religious or otherwise with opposing views.
Those opposing views can't be appeased with a democratic vote every few years as they all want to win at any cost. The only thing that differs slightly is what they class as winning but for the most part part each faction wants the total anhilalation of the others.
oh god lol we were supporting russia and essad a couple of months ago and before that we were against essad...erdoagn turned country in to a yo-yo lol
Do you know how many times Russia has vetoed any attempt to end this conflict? This may come as a shock to you, but the UN does not agree on everything.
BlastProcessing
Member
You're never going to get that mandate for Syria as long as Russia is on the Security Council.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
When have that ever managed to solve anything. And besides, Russia is a permanent member of the UN's Security Council, do you really think bringing this to the UN would actually result in anything?
So because they "don't want the US to do it" then the US should stay silent about this then. Man, what kind of message would that kind of thing to the rest of the world and more importantly, to Assad himself.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
UN has been fundamentally broken since the 90s. It really isn't a viable means to resolve conflict anymore. It benefited with a bi-polar world because the two major powers needed the UN to mediate conflict. Now there is only the US, which doesn't need the UN to mediate when they are so much larger than the rest of the world.
I didn't mean to insinuate that. My emotions are running high... I'm sorry.
I feel we could have done something more for refugees instead of what we did where we banned them outright. I just don't trust Trump and I don't believe he has ever done anything for the greater good. I don't trust his administration either.
I am aware. Still, I dont agree on the argument "We do, because we can".
MisterFalcon
Member
Do you prefer not doing anything and see Assad continue to kill with chemical weapons?
Also, I think you dont have understood what I meant with people beeing sick of the us playing world police. This feeling didnt started suddenly last night. This is something many people on many continents had now for decades.
And again the disclaimer, I am not fundamentally opposed to interventions. Also, when I am saying that many people have a feeling, I dont have to 100% agree with these people.
And again the disclaimer, I am not fundamentally opposed to interventions. Also, when I am saying that many people have a feeling, I dont have to 100% agree with these people.
SMOK3Y
Generous Member
Lol. Yeah that makes a ton of sense with Russia and China having veto power.
King Tubby
Member
Where does this line of argument end? Does the US have a duty to intervene everywhere there are atrocities being committed? Is it even wise given how often said intervention ends up making things worse?
As far as I know, Trump can't do more with a pen beyond signing his name.
Maybe Mattis? I wonder if opposing this operation is what got Bannon removed from the NSC.
Pure speculation, of course.
Absolutely we could have universal healthcare if our defense budget wasn't so insane.
I don't think you understand that the US plays "world police" with the tacit or explicit support of a large coalition of Western countries, including basically every country in Europe, and so the people in those countries are presumably not sick of it or they would organize to stop it in some way.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
Again, what should the US do then? Even you have admitted yourself that bringing this matter to the UN would never solve anything.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
LOL at America being world police because of a conscience. There's nothing altruistic about this shit, it's just expedient.
I think the problem is that the US really has no plan other than -
- Bomb shit up
- ?????
- Freedom on the march
DXB-KNIGHT
Member
No Russian casualties (Russian media)
Strange I thought they were helping Al Assad especially given this is one of the major military airbase 🤔
Strange I thought they were helping Al Assad especially given this is one of the major military airbase 🤔
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Sykes-Picot didn't invent Syria, it just delineated what areas would be under French, Russian or British "influence" without specifying whether those regions would be controlled in a strict sense (colonial rule) or a loose sense (exclusive rights to do things in those areas). It wasn't an agreement that ever went into effect, the final borders were quite different than those of that agreement.
Mandatory Syria was subdivided along sectarian lines, but the only group interested in actually separating from Syria was Lebanon. Syria has a complex relationship with nationalism, but as of the 20's and 30's, the various divisions of Mandatory Syria chose to stay together rather than split apart. Indeed, the response to French rule was a series of revolts with the intention of forcing the french out and keeping Syria together. The revolts obviously failed, but the outcome was that the French abandoned the "five state solution" and started merging the other states into a "Greater Syria".
If you took slices of time in the first half of the 20th century and asked "what do the people of Syria want?" they were more likely to want a larger, more diverse state rather than smaller, more homogeneous ones. The Pan-Arab movements sought to create even larger states that encompassed all Arab peoples, culminating in the extremely temporary union of Egypt, Syria and North Yemen into a single state in the late 50's / early 60's. This general trend runs very counter to modern conventional wisdom, which usually suggests that the Ottoman territories should have been divided up into smaller territorial units that respected confessional, ethnic and sectarian differences. In reality though, that's not what the people at that time actually wanted. Only Iraq was created with a deliberate crossing of confessional lines to make its being ruled by Faisal I more palatable to its constituents.
Haha?
We get that hes completely inept and unqualified, but Jesus. Somebody near can't talk some sense into him?
You can't just do whatever the fuck you want.
Personally, I'd prefer that Trump and his administration didn't essentially go from a "What's an Aleppo?" attitude towards Syria to suddenly unilateral military action in under 48 hrs. "Assad's actions" didn't just start this past week, they've been an ongoing crime against humanity for years now and little children have been the targets of his crimes countless times before.
From the sound of this attack, its mostly military theater. Everyone was warned beforehand (so much for Trump and his surprise attacks), it was a non-civilian target, and so it amounts to little more than sabre-rattling which won't amount to anything if it isn't followed by skilled diplomacy of which I have little faith of seeing from the Trump administration.
I'm thinking the 70-80 million dollar bill for firing this many missiles probably could have been better spent on fastracking vetting for Syrian refugees or other forms of humanitarian aid, assuming we had the kind of empathy and compassion for that sort of thing.
What is your plan?
It's nearly impossible to replace a regime without resistance. Replacing a regime in the Middle East is essentially a guaranteed quagmire. Happened to the Russians in Afghanistan too.
You become the target of the extremist resistance instead of the the despot you removed.
No one else even gives enough of a shit to do anything in such situations going back decades.
Gaius Cassius
Member
I thought about what the past few of you said, as funny as it may seem, yes, we have traded our diplomatic chances with military ones. And It terrifies me. State dept removed. Military nationalists and military budget strengthened. What's most frightening right now, gaffers? There is a large number of Americans going around tonight, and I've met my share, bragging about this attack tonight. Bragging about aggression. Bragging that we are on our way to making America great again one backwards raghead, non Christian Country at a time. Bragging about killing. This is the first they say proudly.
I'm terrified. I hope the rest of you ends us from existence, God's honest truth, because I fear this planet's survival with these people in charge.
I'm terrified. I hope the rest of you ends us from existence, God's honest truth, because I fear this planet's survival with these people in charge.
I fail to see what my generel view on the world police topic has to do with this specific situation.
Yeah, the left organizing. Good joke. Just look at the Bernie Sanders/Clinton/DNC Threads, everyone who should now organizne and unite to fight against Trump is busy fighting against themself. And this is not exclusiv in the US, the left is fighting everywhere against themself.
And the right is already fucking with Putin and I think thats a sign that they dont support the US.
King Tubby
Member
I'm sympathetic to the argument that chemical weapons are a line in the sand that can't be tolerated, but I can't muster the will to celebrate what seems to be only step one in the same old recipe for disaster. These same arguments applied to Saddam Hussein and Iraq, and we fucked that up to such an absurd fashion that it boggles the mind. I have no faith whatsoever in the Trump administration to handle it even halfway competently or compassionately.
And when the US becomes the target of extremist resistance, and the areas in which it intervenes become further destablized and larger hotbeds for said extremism, the drum beats for further military aggression get louder and louder, on and on in what seems to be an endless feedback loop.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
US health care spending dwarfs those other countries. It's not a money problem​. It's a policy problem.
TatteredHat
Member
I can't be entirely opposed to this as Assad was bombing civilians with chemical weaponry, but at the same time I imagine the aftermath of this will just lead to another power vacuum in the middle east that'll fuck things up even more for many years to come.
Do you have any idea how many countries around the world have arrocities committed that the us ignores. Do you have any idea how many the USA has committed? Try to find stats on the number of innocent civilians killed in Iraq during the Iraq war, I dare you. While I get people want to feel morally superior to the rest of the world, any country, but the USA in particular intervening in other countries internal conflicts, has always proven to be disaster. At best you kill a bad guy, but you always leave life worse for the people you're "helping". Always. The USa is fucking walking breathing proof of that. The idea that "this time it will be different" is absurd.
The poster was stating that if this is true, why is the western world not organizing.
-Because the left never stands united, which I underlined with examples.
-Because the new right wing movements are pro-russia.
Really? It's pretty much an example of the US playing world police here. And here you're given two options: do nothing and see Assad continue to kill (which your proposal for Un approval would lead to), or intervene. So you should have an opinion on the effects of what you're suggesting with your "general view".
2blackcats
Member
Yeah.
I mean this civil war has had about half a million civilian casualties already.
This seems like a rush job for whatever reason. I find it impossible to trust in Trumps competence.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Iraq was a stable country ruled by a Very Bad Man(tm) who possessed (fake) large stockpiles of chemical weapons. Syria is six years into a civil war and the Very Bad Man(tm) is now using (real) large stockpiles of chemical weapons on his own civilians.
It's easier to say that you should tolerate a dictator when removing them would cause a lot of issues. In this case, it's a fuzzier question, because the situation on the ground is already totally unstable and filled with bloodshed on a daily basis.
My argument against (major) intervention in Syria is more to do with wanting to avoid giving ISIS more ammunition in their ideological struggle than it is to do with avoiding a repeat of Iraq, because frankly the situations aren't similar at this point.
Yeah, the post you are replying to actually makes sense. Your post, and this post, don't.
- Status