Support NeoGAF

[slit]

Russia Sends Frigate to Mediterranean Following U.S. Retaliation Strike; U.S. Destroyers Remain On Station

https://news.usni.org/2017/04/07/russia-sends-frigate-mediterranean-following-u-s-retaliation-strike-u-s-destroyers-remain-station

 

[aeolist]

There are plausible outcomes where not invading Iraq in 2003 ends up in a bad/worse outcome.

yeah 2 trillion dollars and a million iraqi civilians would have just self-destructed for no reason

 

[commedieu]

I hate Trump as much as anyone else, but people acting like it's not OK to give him credit for something that should have been done years ago by another President and another Congress are biting off their nose to spite their own face.

Innocent people were killed in a chemical weapons attack. AGAIN.

Russia signed a deal in 2013 to prevent Syria from using Chemical weapons, which was supposed to de-escalate a potential military strike by Obama against the Syrian government.

Well, now in 2017...

1. Syria ignored that deal.
2. Russia either ignored that deal or was too incompetent to uphold their end of that deal.
3. Innocent people are dead.
4. Russia continues to defend Syria's actions and have even lied about the cause and source of the chemical weapon attack to cover for Assad's war crimes.

Fuck Russia and Fuck Syria.

Trump did something RIGHT for ONCE. It may be the last time he ever does something right. It may be a total accident he did something right. But he did do the right thing, despite it making him look hypocritical.

Assad needs to go and Russia needs to GTFO out Syria and Crimea.

Period.

No, he really didn't. The only Intel is that rebels claim the Syrians did it. It's still being investigated as of the 4th. There are millions of atrocities that happen in Syria, chemical, while bad, not being the worst of it. So does he only intervene when it's chemicals and let the rest just go? While denying refugees. This isn't an effective message or a dangerous one. Why let Saudi Arabia use chemical weapons and not assad?

This is Bullshit, and hamfisted. It didn't even destroy the runway which is still operational.

If this was a chemical factory, or some strategic point. Great. But what we have is a emotional attack that did nothing. And is likely illegal without hard evidence.

This isn't anything to be proud of or count as a right action. It doesn't promote the safety or quality of life for Syrians. That is not the goal of this administration, as we know they ban refugees from there.

 

[studyguy]

Russia cut a bullshit deal that did absolutely nothing to stem the war or atrocities in Syria.

Obama should have launched a strike the and there, with or without unilateral support, just as Trump has done.

Obama failed, as did Congress, by giving in to Russia's scheme.

And that is precisely why were are in this mess today.

Unilateral strikes assume there is no broader approval.
Obama goes to war in 2013 and suddenly the entire congress is jumping down his throat, potentially ruining the operation. Does that seem like a situation where you're comfortable saying we'd succeed? When we have knives to our own backs while trying to work in Syria?

 

[MDSLKTR]

2017, the year of "let's analyze a single freeze frame and decide that's the mood for the entire meeting".

CSI up all over this bitch in here

 

[ChemicalCutthroat]

They also talked about how the US shouldn't have attacked without the green light from the UN. I can see that point. Even if it was unrealistic.

Getting a Greenlight from the UN is a joke. Particularly since Russia and China are on the Security Council.

They haven't done shit up until this point. There is basically genocide going on in Sudan that everyone ignores because there is nothing there anyone needs. No action there. Unless you want to kill someone with papercuts it is never going to be a realistic thing. (Which yes, you did mention).

 

[primasaurus]

The conflict will never end as long as Assad is in power.

The US arming the opposition was the cause of armed conflict in the first place, why the hell did the US do that, so many have died

 

[Sijil]

Russia cut a bullshit deal that did absolutely nothing to stem the war or atrocities in Syria.

Obama should have launched a strike then and there, with or without unilateral support, just as Trump has done.

Obama failed, as did Congress, by giving in to Russia's scheme.

And that is precisely why were are in this mess today.

The right thing? A unilateral act outside the consensus of the UN which did nothing on the ground and only angered Russia, Iran and their allies, pushing them towards a deeper intervention against US proxies in Syria doesn't sound beneficial at all to US interest in Syria.

It's a show of military strength without achieving anything.

Now Iran and Russia will escalate and the US proxies will loose further ground and civilians will inevitably suffer for it.

The conflict will never end as long as Assad is in power.

Yes, because if Assad steps down, HTS, Ahrar and all of the islamist groups that dominate the insurgents will willfully drop their weapons and embrace secular democracy instead of the Sharia state they've been clamoring for, right?

 

[SRG01]

No, he really didn't. The only Intel is that rebels claim the Syrians did it. It's still being investigated as of the 4th. There are millions of atrocities that happen in Syria, chemical, while bad, not being the worst of it. So does he only intervene when it's chemicals and let the rest just go? While denying refugees. This isn't an effective message or a dangerous one. Why let Saudi Arabia use chemical weapons and not assad?

This is Bullshit, and hamfisted. It didn't even destroy the runway which is still operational.

If this was a chemical factory, or some strategic point. Great. But what we have is a emotional attack that did nothing. And is likely illegal without hard evidence.

This isn't anything to be proud of or count as a right action. It doesn't promote the safety or quality of life for Syrians. That is not the goal of this administration, as we know they ban refugees from there.

This sums up my sentiment. All it does is give a smokescreen of credibility while accomplishing absolutely nothing in terms of stopping the atrocities over in Syria.

It's an amateur effort by an increasingly weak and ineffectual president.

 

[pigeon]

The US arming the opposition was the cause of armed conflict in the first place, why the hell did the US do that, so many have died

I mean theoretically because Assad was a murderous dictator who violently suppressed democratic movements until a homegrown rebellion emerged?

 

[TheContact]

NATO, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Japan, and Australia all seem to have stated unequivocal support for the strikes.

Not France. They said it was a mistake.

 

[oti]

Uruguay criticising US too. But they acknowledge Russia's veto halted a serious investigation. Italy "understands" the attack. So far only the UK "supports" it.

 

[aeolist]

I mean theoretically because Assad was a murderous dictator who violently suppressed democratic movements until a homegrown rebellion emerged?

but why is it our responsibility to see that the rebellion succeeds?

if your answer is "because we should topple dictators" then 1) there's a lot more countries we should be involved in that nobody ever talks about, 2) we should probably stop supporting dictators that are friendly to us, and 3) someone should come up with a new method for doing it because military intervention whether direct or indirect has never really worked for us at all.

 

[Mimosa97]

Look at Kushner's face. Things have gotten very serious for this kid very quickly.

And Trump. He looks like he's trying desperately to understand something but knows he lost the battle to understand it a long time ago.

This shit is so insane, by the way.

What are those black and white boxes ?

Also why are they stuck in such a tiny room ? (also didn't know spicey had security clearance for this stuff)

 

[pigeon]

NATO, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Japan, and Australia all seem to have stated unequivocal support for the strikes.

Germany said it was "understandable" but that the next steps should be diplomatic.

That is not, by any means, unequivocal support. I might even go so far as to call it explicitly equivocal.

 

[FreedomFighter]

No, he really didn't. The only Intel is that rebels claim the Syrians did it. It's still being investigated as of the 4th. There are millions of atrocities that happen in Syria, chemical, while bad, not being the worst of it. So does he only intervene when it's chemicals and let the rest just go? While denying refugees. This isn't an effective message or a dangerous one. Why let Saudi Arabia use chemical weapons and not assad?

This is Bullshit, and hamfisted. It didn't even destroy the runway which is still operational.

If this was a chemical factory, or some strategic point. Great. But what we have is a emotional attack that did nothing. And is likely illegal without hard evidence.

This isn't anything to be proud of or count as a right action. It doesn't promote the safety or quality of life for Syrians. That is not the goal of this administration, as we know they ban refugees from there.

I'm of this particular view. Well said.

 

[Mahonay]

No, he really didn't. The only Intel is that rebels claim the Syrians did it. It's still being investigated as of the 4th. There are millions of atrocities that happen in Syria, chemical, while bad, not being the worst of it. So does he only intervene when it's chemicals and let the rest just go? While denying refugees. This isn't an effective message or a dangerous one. Why let Saudi Arabia use chemical weapons and not assad?

This is Bullshit, and hamfisted. It didn't even destroy the runway which is still operational.

If this was a chemical factory, or some strategic point. Great. But what we have is a emotional attack that did nothing. And is likely illegal without hard evidence.

This isn't anything to be proud of or count as a right action. It doesn't promote the safety or quality of life for Syrians. That is not the goal of this administration, as we know they ban refugees from there.

Well put. I have so many conflicting feelings about this and you've summed a lot it up very well.

 

[captainnapalm]

I love Kush is just giving the stinkiest of stink eyes to Bannon instead of looking at whatever everyone else is.

Kushner looks terrified to me.

 

[primasaurus]

rand paul and bernie sanders also made statements against it

I trust Bernie the most out all the US politicians, Trump would be the least with his alternative "facts"

 

[TheRealTalker]

Widespread reports of multiple chlorine bombs dropped on areas of East Ghouta outside #Damascus.

#Assad continues to act with impunity.

.

 

[robochimp]

The US arming the opposition was the cause of armed conflict in the first place, why the hell did the US do that, so many have died

Syria was shelling peaceful protest marches in 2012.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Russia cut a bullshit deal that did absolutely nothing to stem the war or atrocities in Syria.

Obama should have launched a strike then and there, with or without unilateral support, just as Trump has done.

Obama failed, as did Congress, by giving in to Russia's scheme.

And that is precisely why were are in this mess today.

Ah, the valuable asset of hindsight and a myriad of post-decision analyses and consequences, and the complete inability to put yourself in Obama's shoes during an infinitely more complex position he was in 2013.

How about the insight of Trump being pro-assad, "no regime change", right before he decides to gas his people? Does openly declaring such a position for a murderous dictator with a history of killing his people hold any accountability for what might happen?

But yes, please continue to tell us how valuable your 2017 insight is.

 

[primasaurus]

I mean theoretically because Assad was a murderous dictator who violently suppressed democratic movements until a homegrown rebellion emerged?

None of their business interfering by arming killers, the US doesn't have a great record with that, the results they get are abysmal for any local population

 

[Netherscourge]

The right thing? A unilateral act outside the consensus of the UN which did nothing on the ground and only angered Russia, Iran and their allies, pushing them towards a deeper intervention against US proxies in Syria doesn't sound beneficial at all to US interest in Syria.

It's a show of military strength without achieving anything.

Now Iran and Russia will escalate and the US proxies will loose further ground and civilians will be inevitably suffer for it.



Yes, because if Assad steps down, HTS, Ahrar and all of the islamist groups that dominate the insurgents will willfully drop their weapons and embrace secular democracy instead of the Sharia state they've been clamoring for, right?

So what would your response have been to the chemical attacks on civilians by Assad?

Diplomacy is nonexistent. Sanctions are useless.

What do you propose? Hmmm?

 

[DXB-KNIGHT]

.

Pro Assad Miltias (mostly Hezbollah) are conducting these revenge attacks as reported hence you can't blame AL Assad directly.

 

[Autoignition]

but why is it our responsibility to see that the rebellion succeeds?

if your answer is "because we should topple dictators" then 1) there's a lot more countries we should be involved in that nobody ever talks about, 2) we should probably stop supporting dictators that are friendly to us, and 3) someone should come up with a new method for doing it because military intervention whether direct or indirect has never really worked for us at all.

Because Syria is a complicated fucking mess. Here's your three options for Syria:

1. ISIS takes control of the country. (We do not want this.)
2. Assad destroys ISIS within the borders of Syria (this would be good!) but continues using chemical weapons against innocent civilians because his people are in open rebellion against him (BAD).
3. The rebels somehow oust both Assad and ISIS. Which is good! Except... there's more than one rebel faction group fighting. Which makes it fucking messy and not as simple as, "well just give them some weapons, then." This is why (I assume) Trump's initial attitude towards Syria was, "fuck it, just let Assad deal with ISIS and we'll stay the hell out of it."

As long as we remain at war with ISIS, the political climate in Syria is our business. And if the guy we were going to use as a prop (Assad) commits war crimes and breaks agreements with us and Russia is complicit in it, that becomes A Problem with no real clear, easy solution.

 

[oti]

France repeating Hollande's and Merkel's statement. Syria needs political solution.

 

[primasaurus]

Syria was shelling peaceful protest marches in 2012.

Yeah he played his hand very badly, but so has the US in inflaming this conflict resulting in so many more deaths

 

[Frustrated_me]

Because Syria is a complicated fucking mess. Here's your three options for Syria:

1. ISIS takes control of the country. (We do not want this.)
2. Assad destroys ISIS within the borders of Syria (this would be good!) but continues using chemical weapons against innocent civilians because his people are in open rebellion against him (BAD).
3. The rebels somehow oust both Assad and ISIS. Which is good! Except... there's more than one rebel faction group fighting. Which makes it fucking messy and not as simple as, "well just give them some weapons, then." This is why (I assume) Trump's initial attitude towards Syria was, "fuck it, just let Assad deal with ISIS and we'll stay the hell out of it."

As long as we remain at war with ISIS, the political climate in Syria is our business. And if the guy we were going to use as a prop (Assad) commits war crimes and breaks agreements with us and Russia is complicit in it, that becomes A Problem with no real clear, easy solution.

ISIS is not a big threat in Syria.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

ISIS is not a big threat in Syria.

The capital of their caliphate is in Syria...

 

[e_i]

.

Godamnit, this guy is evil.

 

[Sijil]

So what would your response have been to the chemical attacks on civilians by Assad?

Diplomacy is nonexistent. Sanctions are useless.

What do you propose? Hmmm?

Same response to Saudi atrocities in Yemen and Israeli war crimes in Gaza and Lebanon.

 

[FreedomFighter]

ISIS is not a big threat in Syria.

Those poor people in Raqqa would probably disagree with you.

 

[oti]

China says all parties should stick to dialogue, not military action.

Japan "supports the determination of the US" to end chemical attacks". But also here, no military solution. After the UK that's the most supportive statement yet.

Now it's Russia's time to speak.

 

[Frustrated_me]

The capital of their caliphate is in Syria...

Those poor people in Raqqa would probably disagree with you.

The rebels are a bigger threat to Assad than ISIS is. That being said, the SDF are going to handle ISIS in their capital soon.

My point is that ISIS is not going to take over Syria at this stage of the war.

 

[FreedomFighter]

The rebels are a bigger threat to Assad than ISIS is. That being said, the SDF are going to handle ISIS in their capital soon.

My point is that ISIS is not going to take over Syria at this stage of the war.

That's not what you said though. You said ISIS wasn't a big threat in Syria.

 

[pigeon]

but why is it our responsibility to see that the rebellion succeeds?

if your answer is "because we should topple dictators" then 1) there's a lot more countries we should be involved in that nobody ever talks about, 2) we should probably stop supporting dictators that are friendly to us, and 3) someone should come up with a new method for doing it because military intervention whether direct or indirect has never really worked for us at all.

This is a fair question and all of your critiques here also strike me as valid and serious ones. I don't have a great answer. America has not been very successful in promoting democracy. Hell, it took us like forty years just to figure out that you can't shoot people until they become democratic.

At the same time, though, I think there's a strong argument that many aspects of the post-WWII global order depend on the assumption that America, and the UN, will act to stop genocide, oppression and conquest. Admittedly this assumption has not consistently held true, but it hasn't always failed. We know what the world looked like before WWII and it mostly sucked for everybody. Hard to know to what degree Pax Americana is keeping that from happening again.

I think the question is whether you think it is possible to ever have an effective and appropriate military intervention, and if so, what would be required. Your position can certainly be "no, never," but I don't think I agree with that. It's too easy to postulate situations where we probably should act. The problem is that real life is rarely like postulates.

Obviously in this particular case, at this moment, I don't think the US should militarily intervene in Syria, for the reasons I've given. Staging a fake reality TV intervention in Syria is, if anything, worse.

 

[Pathfinder]

I give Trump credit for doing the right thing in a situation where he came out looking hypocritical.

So, he's going to start taking in refugees then?

Yeah, didn't think so.

 

[pigeon]

So what would your response have been to the chemical attacks on civilians by Assad?

Diplomacy is nonexistent. Sanctions are useless.

What do you propose? Hmmm?

I mean, what was our response to the non-chemical attacks on civilians by Assad? They have been much more extensive and have a much higher death toll.

Just because something is terrible doesn't mean we necessarily have the power to take useful action to stop it.

 

[Netherscourge]

If someone can come up with a non-military way to remove Assad and his regime from Syria, let's hear it.

There's a whole lot of "Don't do this" and not enough of "Let's do that" around the world on this stuff.

Sit around and do nothing but making verbal condemnations doesn't work. It kills innocent people.

 

[Tovarisc]

https://twitter.com/AP/status/850385466570534913

 

[oti]

Russia getting angry. Bringing up Lybia. Saying the US bends the rules when they want. That the Syrian army is the most important army to counter ISIL. Also saying Russia has been signaling interest in cooperation and yet US chose their own way.

"Think of your steps." As in how the US has destabilised the region.

Also saying the US hypocritically throwing assumption of innocence out the window regarding Assad and the gas attack.

Then he attacks the UK. Holy cow. Russia's fuming.

Now he's accusing the US and its Allies of being afraid of the results of an independent investigation into the gas attack. Wat.

 

[pigeon]

If someone can come up with a non-military way to remove Assad and his regime from Syria, let's hear it.

There's a whole lot of "Don't do this" and not enough of "Let's do that" around the world on this stuff.

Sit around an do nothing doesn't work. It kills innocent people.

As I asked earlier -- would you support a second Iraq War in Syria? Fourteen years of occupation? Would that an appropriate cost to pay for removing Assad?

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

So, he's going to start taking in refugees then?

Or stop deflecting when he orders air strikes that kill far more people than this gas attack did?

 

[rambis]

So, he's going to start taking in refugees then?

Yeah, didn't think so.

Right. His attitude towards them is even more disgusting now that he is actively helping create more refugees.

 

[Beer Monkey]

Russia getting angry. Bringing up Lybia. Saying the US bends the rules when they want. That the Syrian army is the most important army to counter ISIL. Also saying Russia has been signaling interest in cooperation and yet US chose their own way.

"Think of your steps." As in how the US has destabilised the region.

Also saying the US hypocritically throwing assumption of innocence out the window regarding Assad and the gas attack.

Then he attacks the UK. Holy cow. Russia's fuming.

Now he's accusing the US and its Allies of being afraid of the results of an independent investigation into the gas attack. Wat.

Russia should be mad, they bought themselves a US President and all of a sudden he's not doing what they want, at least for a day.

 

[oti]

Again, link to the UN Council meeting.
https://youtu.be/42DxjMqULuA

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

The US arming the opposition was the cause of armed conflict in the first place, why the hell did the US do that, so many have died

No, Assad refusing dialogue with his people and sending out his army against them is was caused this. First battles in the conflict were between Assad's forces and defectors.

Not acting early on is what drove opposition forces to find help elsewhere in militant group. We acted too softly after the waters were muddied with jihadis trying to find remaining partisans to ally with.

 

[SDCowboy]

Again, link to the UN Council meeting.
https://youtu.be/42DxjMqULuA

I wish they'd quiet the volume of the person speaking or turn up the translation on the feed. It's hard to understand what the translation is saying.

 

[oti]

I wish they'd quit the volume person speaking or turn up the translation on the feed. It's hard to understand what the translation is saying.

Yeah, that's unfortunate.