Sir Rugdumph
Member
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23tcoHFaWmo
This is a better feed, in that regard. It hitches a lot for me though that might just be crummy work internet
CNBC: US military has launched more than 50 missiles aimed at Syria: NBC News
- Thread starter mackaveli
- Start date
- Status
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23tcoHFaWmo
This is a better feed, in that regard. It hitches a lot for me though that might just be crummy work internet
ChemicalCutthroat
Member
Hahaha... Russia talking about us bending the rules, and they send mooks in to 'liberate' chunks of the Ukraine that want to 'secede'.
FreedomFighter
Member
Trump to launch 118 Tomahawks - 59 on Khmeimim airbase and another 59 at Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol. /s
Both nations are raging hypocrites.
I'm sure we'll soon hear about the Plebiscite that voted to have themselves gassed to death by Assad.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Give me a break, how many crimes, genocides, happen every year in Africa and the US does nothing. Plus, look at what happened with Iraq and Lybia. Why would it be different this time? The US could have worked with the UN and yes Russia to difuse the situation but didn't want to compromise since it would benefit Russia.
If this somehow ties back into the Trump/Russia shit I'm going to laugh so hard because Trump will absolutely lose his shit.
Beer Monkey
Member
They mix it hard left/right intentionally so you can choose the language with your balance control. I'm just listening to the right channel with a little of the left mixed in for emotion.
https://twitter.com/wjhenn/status/850389107087998976
Edit: Suggests Russia didn't get heads up or they would have gotten hell out of there
so? who cares?
ChemicalCutthroat
Member
Hey, I agree with you there man.
Wait...he's going to launch more?
High Fry Frow
Member
Not to mention the horrific genocide against drug addicts and dealers happening in the Philippines.
There are numerous atrocities being committed by foreign governments towards their peoples across the world.
Frankly, I'm sick to death of our Scientology-life belief and faith in military ousting and nation building in the Middle East.
It's the UN. What do you mean who cares?
primasaurus
Member
Syria is a secular country, and by most standards was modern and progressive for the region before the war, Assad would brutally suppress a portion of his population, not unlike something the Saudi are doing now, but the US has strong business ties the Saudis so they support them even when they are not secular and have been know to have links with terrorism including the ones that attacked the twin towers
Not leaving Syria to sort it's own issues by arming anyone to incite violence was the wrong move by the US, it just doesn't work, Syria should have been left to evolve in it's own way like all older Democracies have done including the US, Assad may have eventually been ousted through internal politics eventually, but most likely the country would have been in a better shape than it is now, and I would guess far fewer people would have died, nothing can be worse that what Syria has become now because of US interference in arming killers
This statement is a little ironic considering how much the UN has gotten done in regards to Syria :lol
I know. But Russia does have the Veto Right. It does matter what they say, even if what they say is questionable. That's the situation we live in.
Why intervene in the first place? For all the morale posturing I don't see any Western nation pressuring the Saudis to end the atrocities in Yemen or end the Bahraini occupation.
The West lost all credibility when they can pick and choose which brutal dictatorships to support and which to remove by force.
FreedomFighter
Member
Does your military intelligence tell you it should have been less to accomplish the mission?
High Fry Frow
Member
What is it we think we can accomplish here? What children's lives are we saving?
What did these bombs accomplish; what is our long-term strategic goal?
I'm extraordinarily disheartened by any unequivocal full support of these actions.
What did these bombs accomplish; what is our long-term strategic goal?
I'm extraordinarily disheartened by any unequivocal full support of these actions.
Autoignition
Member
Because!! We are!! At war!! With ISIS!!
And ISIS is in Syria and not Saudi Arabia! What happens in Syria is explicitly our business.
Assad used chemical weapons we retaliated with a military response, he wont do it again or if he does he will be fucked. Thats about it. Theres also a web of other potential events unfolding
I'm not.
To destroy the base they targeted. Seems like it was destroyed so mission is accomplished.
So what if he does do it again? I mean there are reports of chlorine gas use today on this page.
What would the next appropriate military action be? What would you support?
primasaurus
Member
He was opposed with some of his population, he would have controlled the situation leaving the country in relative peace even if not great from some, but far fewer people would die or be displaced, but by the US actively arming his enemies the US started a full scale war and we now have a country in complete ruins with so many dead and displaced
The US policy of interference in other states has a terrible track record, why they think it will work I dont know, but it appears to be some form of collective madness
SymbiantXenos
Member
Legitimately? I would support a more broad military strike meant to do further damage to Assad's air infrastructure.
Me personally? Russia and Iran disown Assad, we go in with allies and maybe even Russia with UN support and remove him, and then work together to rebuild Syria and eliminate ISIS
What would probably actually happen is we go to war and its a huge clusterfuck but 10 years from now bahgdadi and assad are both gone and the next ISIS is beginning to rise
"Blow up that building" is not a mission. Even Starcraft campaigns have broader objectives than that.
What was the point of blowing up the airfield? What did it accomplish? What is now different in Syria?
More cruise missiles? Or broader in terms of deployment?
...so, like, you know that the policy you're proposing would probably create a second ISIS and take a decade of war...but you still think it's a good idea?
i mean, here's the secret: promoting democracy has never been the goal. america is an imperialist nation and behaves accordingly, all we care about is maintaining military supremacy and forcing the rest of the world to accept our economic model.
DXB-KNIGHT
Member
Pentagon examining whether Russia had role in Syria chemical attack, US military officials say - @ckubeNBC
Well if true that might explain Russia's abnormal anger.
Well if true that might explain Russia's abnormal anger.
More cruise missiles. Take the old, "appropriate and measured response" route, keep the line clearly on one side of the use of chemical weapons.
The alternative being the current ISIS grows and potentially ascertains a WMD and Assad also gets away with murdering children using chemical weapons as the leader of a country? Absolutely.
There is no easy answer here.
Depressing...right now I'm pretty condident that mankind will one day manage to nuke itself into oblivion over a fucking piece of candy.
What in bloody hell is Assad even fighting for at this point? Putin can fly him out, give him 1 Billion of cash and a nice Datscha. Enjoy asshole. I really don't get what's good about being the king of a hell hole.
And the 1 million dollar question: whatever Syria's value is in this game of chess, is it really worth risking an escalation. Yeah, everyone of us will truely benefit from those fucking pipelines and all the other shit. Fuck this world.
What in bloody hell is Assad even fighting for at this point? Putin can fly him out, give him 1 Billion of cash and a nice Datscha. Enjoy asshole. I really don't get what's good about being the king of a hell hole.
And the 1 million dollar question: whatever Syria's value is in this game of chess, is it really worth risking an escalation. Yeah, everyone of us will truely benefit from those fucking pipelines and all the other shit. Fuck this world.
What if you take our his airfields, but they start doing artillery delivery? What if you take that option out and they move to just direct approach of wearing hazmat and releasing gas canisters from backs of trucks?
If Assad and his military lead gets to keep power goal posts will just keep moving.
Scary to think that large scale missile strike order was driven by pure emotion.
Beer Monkey
Member
That would be consistent with the criticisms of Trump not having the temperament to be president.
FreedomFighter
Member
Substitute Russia with US and Syria with Israel for fun times.
Same basic question remains as to why they would need to do that. Doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
BlastProcessing
Member
This put's Trump's quick response in a different light. If you wanted to bury Russian involvement, you would want to quickly and loudly move against Assad.
SymbiantXenos
Member
One advantage of reaction is that you can point to action to absolve blame. Clearly boots on the ground in Syria will just lead to a decades long multifront war, so we draw a line on chemical weapons and in the meantime keep uselessly negotiating in the UN. That way we can still fight our proxy war in Syria without spending too much money or American lives.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
His "control" is committing atrocities that further radicalize citizens and displace others. US arming select groups did not escalate or change the lines by much. Assad turning to Iranian troops, Hezbollah, and Russia is what escalated the conflict. He was trying to break the stalemate that had formed with his army splintered from defections.
Again the rebel groups got most of their reinforcements from militants and jihadi groups, not the US. They did so because the couldn't get Western help when Assad escalated the conflict.
Assad learned from his father so it's foolish to think he wouldn't raze Aleppo without US backing rebels. It's the same actions that his father took to quell an uprising.
BlackGhost
Banned
Spicer live
Edit: I guess they don't want it on camera
Edit: I guess they don't want it on camera
Only those of pure moral thought and history are able to act based on morality.
*halo glows above my head*
I think it's either this or that the whole attack was basically reality television to make Trump look strong and compassionate. Which helps explain why we didn't care that the Syrians were warned. Neither seems particularly good to me, though.
This isn't a terrible argument either, really. The problem is that even if you assume that's true you still have to figure out for yourself which military engagements might actually be good ideas, unless your conclusion from that really is that all military action on the part of the United States is intrinsically illegitimate. As I said, I can understand that position but I don't know that I'm persuaded of it. Presumably you should want somebody who agrees with you to take over America and manage its military effectively, so they'll need a rationale on which to act.
Sure, but then what? Easy to imagine a situation where we've fired a few hundred cruise missiles into Syria, but Assad is still in power and massacring civilians.
Well, okay. I guess if you genuinely think a second Iraq War would be a good idea, then there's no particular reason to oppose this airstrike.
As somebody who lived through the first Iraq War this seems totally bonkers to me. Nothing did greater harm to the international order or to America's place in the world than the Iraq War, to say nothing of the countless Americans and Iraqis who died or were mutilated. We took a tinpot dictatorship and turned it into a failed state at massive cost to us and to the people of that country.
I can't imagine wanting to do that again in Syria. Neither can most Americans, I suspect.
- Status