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?
22945 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Offline
Posted 4/6/17

runec wrote:


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.






I trust Mattis' opinion, who is easily qualified for the action, among other things. Just saying.
35657 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 4/6/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

I trust Mattis' opinion, who is easily qualified for the action, among other things. Just saying.



If you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately.

- General James Mattis


>.>
22945 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Offline
Posted 4/6/17 , edited 4/6/17

nanikore2 wrote:


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.



There is a practicality aspect to consider, you are right. While chemical weapons I believe are explicitly banned and are considered war crimes, which he allegedly used, there is also a great deal of his regime that is also criticized.

So in essence, the lesser of two evils is still evil, with the possibility that such dictatorships are what lead to ISIL being even more popular in this area of the world. This is conjecture of course, but history dictates that continued oppression leads to people siding with extremists who just happen to oppose their common enemy.

http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/CoISyria/A-HRC-31-CRP1_en.pdf
22945 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Offline
Posted 4/6/17 , edited 4/6/17

runec wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

I trust Mattis' opinion, who is easily qualified for the action, among other things. Just saying.



If you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately.

- General James Mattis


>.>


That appears to be Mattis citing a case for funding of the State Department instead of budget cuts in 2013, with the full quote being


“Yes, sir,” Mattis said at the time. “I would start with the State Department budget. Frankly, they need to be as fully funded as Congress believes appropriate, because if you don’t fund the State Department fully then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately. So I think it’s a cost-benefit ratio. The more we put into the State Department’s diplomacy, hopefully the less we have to put into a military budget as we deal with the outcome of apparent American withdrawal from the international scene.”


in a bout concerning the effectiveness of foreign aid, among other things, and came back in the news when Trump proposed wide ranging cuts on everything except the military, which many retired generals opposed in 2017.

https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/13-07%20-%203-5-13.pdf


I am not entirely sure it is the right thing to consider, but I do think the consideration is long overdue.
27912 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Online
Posted 4/6/17
Wait.. the U.S. Just bomber a Syrian airfield. Hope it's not one the Russians are used using. Accidentally starting WWIII...
30000 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
83 / F / Bite the pillow.
Offline
Posted 4/6/17
Oil and Gold are really popping tonight in the futures market which one would expect.

Interestingly enough, so is Bitcoin. Crypto-currencies generally don't move on world events (too much Chinese trading), but it seems the Illuminati is looking for some place to ditch a bit outside of the usual Gold contracts. Here's a 2-hour chart of Bitcoin in USD (BTC/USD).

Banned
21752 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
53 / M / In
Offline
Posted 4/6/17

MysticGon wrote:

Wait.. the U.S. Just bomber a Syrian airfield. Hope it's not one the Russians are used using. Accidentally starting WWIII...


unbunch your panties they informed russia before they launched
27912 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Online
Posted 4/6/17

uncletim wrote:


MysticGon wrote:

Wait.. the U.S. Just bomber a Syrian airfield. Hope it's not one the Russians are used using. Accidentally starting WWIII...


unbunch your panties they informed russia before they launched


"Oh hey we are gonna destroy an airfield your men are using, some of them might die, hope your cool with that. Send my love to Putin." Yeah I sure that went down well in Moscow.
30000 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
83 / F / Bite the pillow.
Offline
Posted 4/6/17

MysticGon wrote:


uncletim wrote:


MysticGon wrote:

Wait.. the U.S. Just bomber a Syrian airfield. Hope it's not one the Russians are used using. Accidentally starting WWIII...


unbunch your panties they informed russia before they launched


"Oh hey we are gonna destroy an airfield your men are using, some of them might die, hope your cool with that. Send my love to Putin." Yeah I sure that went down well in Moscow.

According to Reuters the air base was in the central city of Homs from which the Syrian aircraft staged Tuesday's chemical weapons attack. So, if the Russians were using it, they are complicit in chemical warfare which would be quite the violation. IMO, but I doubt the Russians were using that particular air base.
Banned
21752 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
53 / M / In
Offline
Posted 4/6/17

MysticGon wrote:


uncletim wrote:


MysticGon wrote:

Wait.. the U.S. Just bomber a Syrian airfield. Hope it's not one the Russians are used using. Accidentally starting WWIII...


unbunch your panties they informed russia before they launched


"Oh hey we are gonna destroy an airfield your men are using, some of them might die, hope your cool with that. Send my love to Putin." Yeah I sure that went down well in Moscow.


There is no proof that there were any russians at that airfield and if there were so what? sleep with dogs you wake up with fleas or are you saying we need russias permission to do anything in world now?
54865 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
101 / M
Offline
Posted 4/6/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:


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.



I know using Nuclear weapons is way overkill, was just saying perhaps can use scare tactic on the Leader of North Korea since he keep threatening us and our allies that he'll shoot missiles.

I'm sure he know the history of World War 2 that we use Atomic Bomb on Japan in 1945 and that ended the War instantly!

Maybe not, He probably know that we won't use Atomic bomb, since it'll involve lot of innocent people.

Too bad we were too late to install Kim Jong Nam to lead North Korea.. China probably was planning on replacing him but was too late.
27912 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Online
Posted 4/6/17 , edited 4/6/17

uncletim wrote:


There is no proof that there were any russians at that airfield and if there were so what? sleep with dogs you wake up with fleas or are you saying we need russias permission to do anything in world now?


Do I have to explain to you what could happen if American bombs kill Russian servicemen. Do I really have to?
Banned
21752 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
53 / M / In
Offline
Posted 4/6/17 , edited 4/6/17

MysticGon wrote:


uncletim wrote:


There is no proof that there were any russians at that airfield and if there were so what? sleep with dogs you wake up with fleas or are you saying we need russias permission to do anything in world now?


Do I have to explain to you what could happen if American bombs kill Russian servicemen. Do I really have to?

nothing that is what is going to happen stop wetting yourself sheesh man up I though you hawks on the right love war..........oh wait that is just against brown people

oh noes the scary russians are going to be mad at us

8781 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Palm Coast, Florida
Offline
Posted 4/6/17
Yeah, I think we should. We have more troops, military power, and in general more weapons.
36328 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / U.S.
Offline
Posted 4/6/17

MonoDreams wrote:

Yeah, I think we should. We have more troops, military power, and in general more weapons.


Why does it matter that we have more troops, more military power, and more weapons? You are the first person to non-jokingly suggest the US should start another war, and I'd like to know why.
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.