Lomax » April 6th, 2017, 9:27 pm wrote:It's good to know firstly that Trump is willing to be consistent on something (having spent years criticising Obama for not taking action against Assad's use of chemical weapons) and secondly that (unlike someguy1) he does not make the best the enemy of the good by pretending that America is too weak to have two enemies. I am concerned about the haste of this strike, and possible intelligence issues: is it well-established that the chlorine strikes were carried out by Syrian forces? We should not forget Clinton's behaviour in the Sudan.
Lomax » April 6th, 2017, 10:24 pm wrote:There are, by my count, at least seven sides in this war. There's the Syrian government and its army. There's ISIS and its Islamist affiliates. There's the Kurds and their US-funded mercenaries, taking the opportunity to fight for independence. There are the coalitions of democratic Syrian rebels. There are the Russians, now intermingled with the Syrians. And there are the Turks, having invaded ostensibly to aid the Syrians against ISIS, but in fact blockading the Syrian army's advance from Aleppo to Raqqa, and pursuing Kurdish front lines. In short, to take part in this war at all is to have more than one enemy; to have two enemies is not to be on the opposite side from yourself. We don't know that this action means a softening of the pursuit of ISIS; and to be the enemy of ISIS does not entail handing the Assad regime a carte blanche to commit war crimes.
And the CIA always supports the propping up of dictators, which usually it put there in the first place. Always has and always will.
someguy1 » April 7th, 2017, 5:41 am wrote:You think bombing's a good idea? How many bombs can we drop to make the world the way we want it to be?
someguy1 » April 7th, 2017, 5:41 am wrote:Has Congress given Trump a war authorization? (Rhetorical question, no they haven't). Does Trump need one? Constitutionally, yes.
someguy1 » April 7th, 2017, 5:41 am wrote:Is this policy working for us? Has our ceaseless bombing and invading and torturing and spreading around corruption money made the Middle East better? Or worse?
BadgerJelly » April 7th, 2017, 6:21 am wrote:I just stick to the rule of thumb being that you cannot trust any government, and the more power said government has the less you can trust them.
Lomax » April 7th, 2017, 1:25 pm wrote:BadgerJelly » April 7th, 2017, 6:21 am wrote:I just stick to the rule of thumb being that you cannot trust any government, and the more power said government has the less you can trust them.
Exactly. The US government announced that it trusted Assad to behave enough to work together, and before the evening was out, he took that as permission to drop chemical weapons on a civilian populace. An abuse of power if ever there was one. And I didn't catch anybody on this forum complaining about it, either.
BadgerJelly » April 7th, 2017, 8:07 am wrote:Honestly, I am not convinced it happened. I have already seen BBC footage edited to say "chemical weapons" when chemical weapons were not used, and actors employed to pretend they were injured.
BadgerJelly » April 7th, 2017, 8:07 am wrote:Let us not pretend our governments are doing what they do in the interest of humanity. What did the UK government do to help innocent people in Rwanda other than jump ship when the shit hit the fan.
BadgerJelly » April 7th, 2017, 8:07 am wrote:Maybe Assad used chemical weapons, maybe not. Doesn't much matter to me who did what. What bothers me is opportunism in the face of murder.
Braininvat » April 7th, 2017, 3:27 pm wrote:Rational democratic government would have a national conversation, the topic would be: there's a terrible dictator in Syria and he's using chemical weapons and what's the best way to deal with this. Then, the nation, through Congress, would talk with the POTUS and the military and the intelligence community and develop a coherent longterm strategy.
Lomax » April 6th, 2017, 10:54 pm wrote:I confess to not knowing enough about Waco. I keep meaning to read Jon Ronson's book.
someguy1 » April 7th, 2017, 5:06 pm wrote:Lomax » April 6th, 2017, 10:54 pm wrote:I confess to not knowing enough about Waco. I keep meaning to read Jon Ronson's book.
One need only consult the low hanging fruit of the tree of knowledge. From Wikipedia:
Eventually, the FBI launched an assault and initiated a tear gas attack in an attempt to force the Branch Davidians out of the ranch. During the attack, a fire engulfed Mount Carmel Center. In total, 76 people died ...
Lomax » April 7th, 2017, 10:25 am wrote:My understanding is that the controversy is over who started the fire.
Lomax » April 7th, 2017, 10:40 am wrote:I'm saying that the fire is believed to have been the cause of most or all of the deaths, right?
someguy1 » April 7th, 2017, 5:58 pm wrote:Lomax » April 7th, 2017, 10:40 am wrote:I'm saying that the fire is believed to have been the cause of most or all of the deaths, right?
Believed by whom? By those who believe the government's story? Assad denies gassing anyone. Why don't you believe his story? Do you see that you have bias here?
Lomax » April 7th, 2017, 11:20 am wrote:By the way, surely you can do better than Waco. Operation LAC is a much closer parallel.
someguy1 » April 7th, 2017, 7:14 pm wrote:based on "evidence" that has not been forthcoming, over an incident strongly denied by Assad?
Lomax » April 7th, 2017, 12:24 pm wrote:Before I deal with the rest ...
Braininvat » April 7th, 2017, 6:04 pm wrote: If Obama had done this, would you have protested as loudly as you have today? Perhaps you should consider a possible role that partisan bias plays in how you view executive orders.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests