First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next  Last
Post Reply US War On Syria?
47460 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Sweden
Online
Posted 4/6/17
Lol a all out war will probably not happen after this. If anything it'll increase terrorist attacks as they get desperate.

Oh and you mentioned China, did you know they have stated multiple times that they won't attack anyone unless they attack first. So unless the US mistakes China for Syria then there's probably no chance of anything happening
55177 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
101 / M
Offline
Posted 4/6/17

brookline wrote:

Should America go to War against Syria?

"President" Trump thinks so. On the news today he said he planning to send ground troops into Syria and take down the government.

We all know what that means. More "refugees" More tax money to war. War spilling into Iran. War with Russia. War with China.

Here we go again.


WAit a min, I thought its North Korea we're going after... I keep seeing headline on Yahoo website about North Korea, and I was thinking well we'll probably ending up dropping bombs on them like we did in Japan back in 1944/1945?
923 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 4/6/17
The scary thing is whether Donald Trump's understaffed administration can provide the information and planning to the President that would allow him to come to an informed decision, executed competently.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/so-you-want-to-start-another-middle-eastern-war/522201/?utm_source=atlfb

Once U.S. aircraft were headed into Syria, they would have to negotiate the problem of Russian troops already there. Though the Kremlin said Thursday its support for Assad is not unconditional, there are Russian forces currently on the ground, along with sophisticated anti-aircraft systems. If American attacks killed Russians, it could spark a much larger diplomatic or military encounter. (The presence of Russian forces in Syria was one reasons some experts dismissed Hillary Clinton’s proposal for a no-fly zone in the country.)

All of this assumes Trump would begin with a barrage of airstrikes. (The U.S. does have limited ground troops already in Syria to fight ISIS, too.) One question is whether the president would pursue a quick strike and then attempt to extricate himself, or try something more sweeping. When Obama was toying with action, he very publicly pursued a limited strategy. Secretary of State John Kerry was widely mocked for saying any attack would be “unbelievably small,” but Kerry’s attempts at reassurance pointed to the central dilemma: What could a highly limited attack really achieve? Obama concluded the answer was not enough. If Trump decided for a small effort, what would the objective be? To kill Assad? And if it didn’t work immediately, what would he do next? Expand his fight? The risk of getting drawn into a protracted war is no less than it was in 2013.

If, on the other hand, Trump sought a more extensive strategy, all of the logistical, legal, and political questions would be even more complicated. Given how new the Trump administration is, and how understaffed it remains, the president can hardly have had time to consider the sorts of planning required for a major bombing campaign, much less a larger war. When Obama joined the intervention in Libya, it came a month into the Libyan civil war and was coordinated with other nations. Even so, that action turned into a catastrophe. The Iraq war was the product of months of planning, and its aftermath was even worse—bloodier and more costly. The Trump administration is giving every indication it’s on a much faster path than either of these.
6636 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/6/17
well considering its been going over for 6 years and from my understanding its a pretty destructive one and unless im missing something likely won't end any time soon on its own it may not be a bad thing to intervene though i admit their is probably quite a bit i don't know about the conflict so their maybe better alternatives then a possible military intervention. whatever happens i would say should help with rebuilding it into a better country no dictator in power and such
25684 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Imouto Sanctuary
Online
Posted 4/6/17

JanusCascade wrote:


brookline wrote:

Should America go to War against Syria?

"President" Trump thinks so. On the news today he said he planning to send ground troops into Syria and take down the government.

We all know what that means. More "refugees" More tax money to war. War spilling into Iran. War with Russia. War with China.

Here we go again.


WAit a min, I thought its North Korea we're going after... I keep seeing headline on Yahoo website about North Korea, and I was thinking well we'll probably ending up dropping bombs on them like we did in Japan back in 1944/1945?


The act of dropping nuclear weapons would be far more problematic than North Korea in that case, due to the mass amount of lives loss, among other thing. The only reasonable threat as far as international guidelines goal is to use nuclear weaponry against other, well established nations with similar capabilities.
30000 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
84 / F / Bite the pillow.
Offline
Posted 4/6/17

brookline wrote:

Should America go to War against Syria?

Yes.

All war is good business for me personally. So aside from taking out a nefarious despot and free the people of Syria from his soul crushing tyranny, I could use the extra cash.
runec 
39016 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/6/17

MeanderCat wrote:
Please recall that the President's use of alternative facts and truthful hyperbole is his stock in trade. Whatever he said, whether publicly or on Twitter he meant, until he didn't.


I'm well aware but he keeps finding new...depths...in his erratic blundering. This pathological sack of self obsessed shit potatoes is who he is and no crisis is sufficiently sobering to make him act like the President. Let alone an adult. That is legitimately terrifying.



auroraloose wrote:
I think it's fair to have opinions on this, but I think it's also important to realize that wars and international relations are incredibly complicated. So if you're not a think tank, you probably aren't that qualified to make a pronouncement on what should be done.


That's kind of the terrifying problem though. Neither Trump nor anyone he has surrounded himself with is qualified to handle any of this. Trump especially is erratic and tends to go with whatever opinion he last heard from an advisor and/or cable news. International relations are incredibly complicated and he dispatched Jared, a real estate developer, to solve peace in the Middle East.

Meanwhile, the State Department is barely functional and Tillerson didn't even want the job to begin with.




1886 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M / Shanghai China
Offline
Posted 4/6/17
1 step closer to ww3 however 2 steps closer to an actual star trek universe the sad part is 600 million people have to die in ww3 first.
28672 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 4/6/17
86924 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
45 / M / WA
Offline
Posted 4/6/17 , edited 4/6/17
Trump was smart not to continue the overstaffing of the White House - it should be cut even more.

The U.S. should establish safe zones in Syria and ground their military aircraft which would stem the flow of refugees. Some troops may be necessary, but a war? No.

More pressure needs to be placed on North Korea ...with a strong military (and will) to back it up! Their recent missile failure may have been due to American espionage.
qwueri 
23478 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Online
Posted 4/6/17
Seems like Trump is going at it with the right reasons, but I don't trust him to competently negotiate through the political minefield or not rush plans and troops into a situation unprepared. As much as I'd love to see Trump step on Russia's fingers by squashing Assad, I don't think the result will end well for anyone.
33428 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 4/6/17

auroraloose wrote:

I think it's fair to have opinions on this, but I think it's also important to realize that wars and international relations are incredibly complicated. So if you're not a think tank, you probably aren't that qualified to make a pronouncement on what should be done. Anybody can say that Syria has been sitting unsolved for too long so we should just march in and fix everything, or that the U.S. is addicted to foreign interventions and ought to spend more time on its own affairs, but few people have the information or expertise to make a solid case for either of these positions. Especially when it comes to crises like in Syria, as those require high-level foreign policy analysis - and the information necessary for that isn't made available to the public. I probably know more than the average American about the situation, but I still know very little. What I do know is that foreign policy decisions can't be based on blanket platitudes. Think about that before you state them as sufficient to determine the proper course of action.

Another thing that bothers me is that Syria is suddenly news because of some chemical weapons attack. Hasn't it already been established that Assad used chemical weapons several years ago, and that the measures put in place at the time to prevent him from using chemical weapons in the future were lacking? Isn't there still a civil war - in which people are dying whether or not chemical weapons were used? And wasn't the Trump administration starting to say they would live with Assad? It's not good to have foreign policy swayed disproportionately by sensational news (even if it is horrible). Incidentally, this is why democracy is bad: People en masse just blow with the media wind; elected representatives don't have to. Whatever the U.S. ends up doing, it would be bad for the world if the U.S. went to war solely because the media coverage of this attack changed everyone's feelings about it, making war politically palatable. That would be a bad sign for the possibility of competent leadership.


Exactly.

To many people there are only two sides- The "side" that's "for us" and one that's not.

The better part of none of them think about exactly what would happen if Assad's actually overthrown.

3066 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / F / The margins
Online
Posted 4/6/17

mittemeyer wrote:

The scary thing is whether Donald Trump's understaffed administration can provide the information and planning to the President that would allow him to come to an informed decision, executed competently.


I thought about mentioning that, yeah. I almost feel like they should take the time to hire more people before doing something drastic, though it's hard to ignore that people have been dying for years and are still dying right now.


runec wrote:


That's kind of the terrifying problem though. Neither Trump nor anyone he has surrounded himself with is qualified to handle any of this. Trump especially is erratic and tends to go with whatever opinion he last heard from an advisor and/or cable news. International relations are incredibly complicated and he dispatched Jared, a real estate developer, to solve peace in the Middle East.

Meanwhile, the State Department is barely functional and Tillerson didn't even want the job to begin with.



Somehow I don't think that's true. Did you go through the list of all his appointees, or are you generalizing from the ones you don't like?
Further, do you have a list of all Trump's decisions and their influences, so you can say that he does actually tend to follow the news or the last person he heard from? Naturally, what you hear on the news about what Trump says and decides are going to be the controversial bits; can you map those into tendencies in all his decisions, even the more mundane ones, or the ones the media doesn't bother to cover? And do Tillerson's feelings before becoming Secretary of State matter now that he's taken the job? Trump may be unhinged, but that doesn't make hyperbole about him justifiable or wise. I myself think Trump probably doesn't know all that much about the situation in Syria and is probably not particularly skilled in foreign policy, and the same is likely true of Bannon. But Mattis and Kelly?
41171 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / HI
Offline
Posted 4/6/17
He says a lot fo things, so we have to see what he is gong to do.
30000 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
84 / F / Bite the pillow.
Offline
Posted 4/6/17 , edited 4/6/17
NBC's @RichardEngel says US military response in Syria "could happen imminently," perhaps in "next several hours"

-- https://twitter.com/passantino/status/850130501880991744 (video)

/Edit:

Here we go, people.

NBC News: US military has launched more than 50 missiles aimed at Syria
https://twitter.com/CNBCnow/status/850155086823260160

Bloomberg: U.S. launches cruise missile attack against Syria in response to chemical attack
https://twitter.com/business/status/850156198477389824

S&P 500 Futures at 9:27 PM ET taking a bit of a hit on the missile strikes.

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.