Wouldn't surprise anyone if it turned out true. Yeah we should count on this happening again.
CNBC: US military has launched more than 50 missiles aimed at Syria: NBC News
- Thread starter mackaveli
- Start date
- Status
No no no. That's not how you do this. This time there's a bad guy. A bad guy who killed his own people. It's not like those other times when there was a bad guy killing his own people. This time it will all be different.
primasaurus
Member
No fan of them either, but it's interesting they are removing this now, the media wanting to get their story straight
kame-sennin
Member
How come you didn't post in my thread?
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1358512&highlight=
Livestream from Steve Bannon's office:
Trump is using the missile strike as a fundraising strategy.
https://twitter.com/nxthompson/status/850438522175725568
Message to the world my ass.
https://twitter.com/nxthompson/status/850438522175725568
Message to the world my ass.
Basically, they reacted like this:
In the war of two evils, it's best no one wins. US played both sides to a draw in order to let them exhaust themselves because no one in the region or otherwise seriously wanted a stronger Iran or Iraq.
The situation isn't really comparable.
What?
Basically, they reacted like this:
In the war of two evils, it's best no one wins. US played both sides to a draw in order to let them exhaust themselves because no one in the region or otherwise seriously wanted a stronger Iran or Iraq.
The situation isn't really comparable.
In the war of two evils? wtf are you talking about? Iraq invaded Iran and gassed them..
But that makes it okay to use cemicial weapons , ight?
lol let's not pretend Iran is a saintly country of Monks, okay?
And no, I'm not defending the choice in the matter just laying down the why's of the strategic directives of US policy during that time. There was a real concern of both allies in the region and in the US of "whoever wins, everyone else looses". This led to a strategy of throwing aid to both sides in the hope of neither of them leaving the war in a position of greater regional strength via letting them run out of fuel and ending the war both weaker for their efforts. Hell, Reagan was almost impeached over Iran-Contra due to this.
Mister0079
Member
Apocryphon
Member
No need for personal attacks dude.
Mister0079
Member
I know people personally affected by those attacks. It is completely personal.
Yes, fuck me for attempting to explain to you what happened rather than exploding in a tantrum. I think that understanding history and learning from it is more important than exploding in emotion at everything.
My personal opinion was that it was a bad idea that led to the blowback that directly caused Iraq1+2 wars. That doesn't change the why of what happened though. Dude asked what happened, I told him.
My uncle died due to AO exposure. You didn't see me flying out in rage at people for talking about it earlier in this thread.
Apocryphon
Member
He didn't know that.
I lost my uncle, I dont think they understand lolo
Mister0079
Member
Iraq invaded Iran and used chemical attacks while the world stood by and watched. Don't dismiss the human lives cost with "it's just politics, both sides were bad" bullshit.
Yeah, and it really is a tragic event and I totally understand dude's rage. I have to restrain myself all the time on this forum any time Johnson comes up due to its very left leaning, millennial makeup that leads to people trying to play down Vietnam in order to praise Johnson.
Hell, I once threw an phone out of my car window once because a Johnson historian once said on a BBC podcast that "I think johnson gets a bit of an unfair rap over the whole Vietnam thing stateside"
I'm not
The man literally asked what was western world's opinion during the iran-iraq war.
I did not state my opinion. I stated directly what the strategic thinking of the US and its allies who were involved in the conflict at the time were thinking when they made the decisions that they did. I answered his question in the most literal way possible.
Are you implying that one of the sides here is "better" than the other? Because..... Hahahahahahahaha haha.
Amerca/Euro would support anyone that is in their best interest just like IRAN/IQAR war
mate,
Iraq used chemical weapons, did anyone stop that? fuck no
Very cute. I genuinely hope you never have to sit in a hospital room watching a person you love slowly waste away in one of the most painful ways imaginable.
Just watch sarin gas does to people
I have. It's terrible. The US' decision to back Saddam was shortsighted and morally repugnant. Something I've said many times, in this thread included.
I really have no idea what you want from me man. It seems to me you're just lashing out for the sake of it at this point.
Damascus is pro Assad area and relatively safe, if the government would deploy sarin gas then that would be in rebels held area. Not their own region on their own people.
Unless there is a front there I don't know about?
Mister0079
Member
I apologize for the quick response in which I insulted you, it's the both sides are evil argument that angers Iranians like myself. Iran was not the one who invaded the other country and used chemical weapons. Defending yourself is not evil and you can not be as bad as the other side no matter what American politicans want to say because they're best buddies with Saudi Arabia and Israel.
down 2 orth
Member
Too bad Mister got banned, because he has made some good points. There was a side that held a moral high-ground in the Iran-Iraq war, and it was Iran by a long shot.
MisterFalcon
Member
A significant part of Eastern Damascus is being held by rebels, hope this helps.
Not only did US and Europe lie about not knowing that Saddam used gas on Iranians but they even gave him a hand in it. That's straight up evil, and you trying to muddy the water and downplay the Western world actively aiding a dictator in the gassing of people by bringing up how US wanted to wear out both countries is frankly speaking disgusting. The end goals don't change anything about it. More attempts at american exceptionalism.
If you want to know what Western opinion was about it, at least from the perspective of state actors, then you absolutely need to know the motives. There's no "muddying of the waters" in that case - the West's actions in that conflict were very much realpolitik. That's not an endorsement - that's what it was. They were not a fan of either country, and took advantage of the conflict to get the desired practical outcome.
and others who also praised US:
Jihadist group Ahrar al-Sham
Al-Qaida
Jabhat Al Nusra
ISIS
Saudi Arabia
Turkey
Israel
With friends like these who needs enemies. The Sunni Arab world is funny praising a man who last month killed over 1000+ Sunnis but I guess those weren't "real" Arab Sunnis considering how silent it was.
I don't give a flying shit about some fucking Western opinion or what the motives and desires were of the white man half across the world. You helped a brutal dictator use chemical weapons on civilians and it doesn't matter how you try to spin this around to make it look more acceptable. You should stop.
PdotMichael
Banned
Cruise missiles aren't that effective. They never were.
I mean if you want to go make a thread about US tomfoolery around the world be my guest, I'll be right there championing a lot of what you say.
As has been stated multiple times at this point: look at the context of the original post and then the response given. There has been no defense of US intervention in INIQ War in this thread. Seriously man, you're yelling at ghosts here.
Bounceounce
Member
Are you implying that it's wrong for young/left leaning people to evaluate all aspects of Johnson's presidency and that he didn't accomplish a lot outside of Vietnam that has been beneficial to this country?
Edit: Is that not possible to do while also acknowledging that Vietnam is such a horrible blemish on his record and was so destructive towards this country/Vietnam that it's more than enough to knock his standing down?
No, I just see a lot of young people handwaving Vietnam away to praise his domestic work in a vacuum. Lot of opinions like "yeah so what every pres has a conflict", or stupidly tonedeaf whataboutism regarding Iraq. Just infuriating stuff. Johnson had a very complicated presidency that I don't think you can ever just talk about one aspect of it purely in a vacuum. Like yes, he helped the poor. He also sent tens of thousands of them and their children off to their deaths in a pointless, idiotic war that top brass knew from the beginning was unwinnable based on WH's target deployment numbers and war aims. All of it based on nothing but frankly racist conjecture that the yellow man would lie down if you just hit him hard enough and enough times. Not to mention the whole lying to congress and the american people in the first place to get Gulf of Tonkin through in the first place.
I'm admittedly very biased in this conversation, but I cannot separate the fact that he ripped the country apart at the seams and was responsible by some estimates for over a million deaths because he passed very forward thinking legislation on the domestic front. This isn't even getting into how much damage he did to his own party and his grand ideas for helping the little man in the process.
I mean look I get that time heals all wounds, and we tend to look backwards with rose tinted glasses for the most part, but for me personally Vietnam ruined Johnson. Again I am extremely biased in this conversation and am not attempting to disregard anyone else's stance on the man. It's a difficult conversation though, and one I don't think with time is going to get much easier.
shawnbuddy
Member
So Trump makes the boom booms and the media loves him now? Disgusting.
feels like it's a trick to get US into a real war
Tarkus
Member
Seems like a hit internationally as well.
Netherscourge
Banned
I think Russia is trying to lure US warplanes out so they can shoot them down.
They probably told Syria to keep attacking cities to do that.
They probably told Syria to keep attacking cities to do that.
Auto_aim1
MeisaMcCaffrey
They aren't gonna do that. It is an act of war.
Netherscourge
Banned
a) I (and my country) didn't - I'm not American.
b) Nobody's trying to make it 'look more acceptable'.
c) The person you're giving shit to for explaining how it works was responding someone else who DID give a shit about 'some fucking Western opinion'.
It might behoove you to read the chain of posts you were responding to initially before you, as someone else quite appropriately put it, start yelling at ghosts. You might not give a shit about the 'why' or opinions, but someone asked, and that's why this conversation happened in the first place.
This was the first post in the chain, if it helps:
And it was quite adequately explained that the West viewed both sides as 'evil' or at least unfriendly actors - that has nothing to do with equating the actions of Iran and Iraq or their leadership IN THAT SPECIFIC CONFLICT, but more of a broader ideological view. So the West's approach was that either actor emerging 'on top' was bad and the ideal realpolitik outcome (again, not the morally or ethically correct one, but the practical one from the position of leadership in their interest of maintaining an advantageous strategic position) was to let both sides fight each other:
This is the 2002 article it's referencing:
Nobody in this conversation, at least that I've read, is trying to 'downplay' it or make it 'acceptable' - just providing information to answer the question about Western opinion and the 'why'.
Business as usual.
wumster3000
Member
So do we know the real reason behind this? Do we know for sure who gased them? I'm under the impression that there is a lot more to this than what's on the surface. He acted on emotions and that's not the way to run a country.
From listening to Republicans, that's how a woman would run the country. Her emotions would get in the way.
From listening to Republicans, that's how a woman would run the country. Her emotions would get in the way.
As if nothing ever happened. This whole episode has been a big pile of nothing while the world continues to turn. Assad continues to kill his citizens while Trump can act like he actually did anything.
So if the intent wasn't even to disable the airbase, as indicated by the fact that negligible damage was done to it - why shoot 50+ missiles?
Millions of dollars down the drain for...at most a vague message? Not even a really effective one, even if that were the intent. An effective one would have involved bombarding it with weapons that could actually destroy/disable the field. They had to know that firing 50+ missiles of an ineffective type would be a waste.
Just seems like an all-round failure. At best a poorly done effort to tap on their shoulder, and at worst just a public image stunt.
Millions of dollars down the drain for...at most a vague message? Not even a really effective one, even if that were the intent. An effective one would have involved bombarding it with weapons that could actually destroy/disable the field. They had to know that firing 50+ missiles of an ineffective type would be a waste.
Just seems like an all-round failure. At best a poorly done effort to tap on their shoulder, and at worst just a public image stunt.
Still claims circling that strike aimed to destroy 33 planes, but managed only to destroy 6 planes that were in maintenance so they couldn't take off.
And Russians are doubling down on about 50% of Tomahawks never made it to target area.
https://twitter.com/BabakTaghvaee/status/850298650869854209
And Russians are doubling down on about 50% of Tomahawks never made it to target area.
Probably because the SyAF flew most of their fleet a couple of hours before the strike. Early warning from the Russians who were themselves warned by the Americans.
Just a big fireworks show by Trump it seems.
- Status