US just bombed Syria
Last edited by Beautiful sky; 04-07-2017 at 07:04 AM.
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
BUT, will the bombing be effective? Will it distract the public from Trump's performance over the past 70 days and his nose-diving popularity? Or will our Game Show President have to gin up a bigger stunt to keep his supporters pumped up and entertained?
How soon will we know?
I'm taking bets, if anyone is interested.
A case could be made saying that Trump's stupidity in policy comments caused Assad to think he could attack civilians, because Trump said he was OK with Assad last week and America wasn't going to get involved in Syria.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...administration
Last edited by Adam Strange; 04-07-2017 at 07:49 AM.
Funny, a while ago Trump was saying that although Assad is a "bad guy", we should still keep him in charge because if we take him down then even a worse guy would take charge quickly, and that the US should cooperate with Russia instead. He seemed to be making sense then. I think this whole thing is really out of Trump's control.
I think Trump started this fight to win, win win, instead of losing all the time. His ratings were dropping, and I've got to hand it to him, he got everyone talking about him again. The guy is a superb self-promotion machine. He usually doesn't have to actually do anything of substance except send out accusatory tweets to get attention, but I guess his recent poll numbers called for more juice.Originally Posted by Singularity
Trump chose to start this involvement in a war that he previously criticized Obama and Hillary about. That part was entirely under his control, but I think this situation will eventually be completely out of his control.
Go Trump! Go Trump! His base is pumped!
Donate to me, ill get jaw implants
He's actually doing fine as president. His poor "nose diving popularity" is due to:
1. The news doesn't report any good stories of him
2. Bad stories are picked out instead
3. Usually only one-side of the story is reported. (ex: the bad quotes/opinions are highlighted, good quotes left out)
4. Controversial things that other presidents did is all a sudden painted as unique when DT does it.
And not only does he have to fight a hostile entertainment industry and biased Press, he has to fight the entire Democratic Party and a portion of the Republican Party.....and for the most part, by himself. Aside from some talk radio and some of Fox News, he's pretty much fighting this battle alone.
The support is quiet and the hate is loud.
Am conflicted about this... Either way.
What are the consequences?
Okay, so here's a breakdown of what happenedAm conflicted about this... Either way.
Assad launched a chemical attack on his own people. ~86 people were killed (men, women, children, babies).
The president responded by ordering strikes to attack the air force base where the deadly chemicals were held.
And to minimize civilian casualties, the launch took place in the middle of the night. The missiles also specifically targeted only the base, away from any villages where innocent people were.
What this the right thing to do?
I believe it was.
On a global scale, I think it signals strength and tells our allies that we got their backs.
Assad's chemical attack wasn't anything new, civil war has been going on in Syria for ~7 years and when Obama was president he did nothing.
When you signal weakness, you have countries like Russia, Iran, North Korea not taking us seriously. At least now, they can see that Trump isn't a president to be reckoned with.
If Trump did absolutely nothing, I think it would put the world in a more dangerous place and embolden the dangerous regimes/dictators around the world, Assad being one of them.
Countries like North Korea can talk smack/do missile testing all they want, but if Kim Jong-Un decides to attack S. Korea or something, they'll know it's game over lol
This is what was needed on the world stage. It was a calibrated response. And many of our allies are actually applauding now (Israel, European Union, Japan, Canada, Turkey, S. Arabia, United Arab Emirates, etc)
Last edited by Computer Loser; 04-07-2017 at 05:29 PM.
OhhhThanks for the good input! Fair enough actually
(esp parts in red)
There is no doubt that the strikes were justifiable.
If they prevent Assad from attacking civilians in future, then the optimal strategy may be to stop at this point. However, it seems that the Americans believe there is no future with Assad. Potentially, it looks like the Americans could be involved in another lengthy war.
The entire strategy of the US is to destabilize Syria so that it will create more headaches for Russia. Russia wanted to keep Assad because at least he brings order and stability in Syria. If you take down Assad, then someone else, someone worse will likely just take his place, or it will cause destabilization in the region which will make things worse. Whatever happened to the joint-forces with US and Russia to fight against ISIS in Syria? Well I guess that was a pipe-dream, because there's no way in hell Washington was ever going to cooperate with Russia, I'd suppose.
This is no different than when the US forcibly removed Saddam Hussein in the war against Iraq. The consequence of that was that it destabilized Iraq, because as much as Saddam was an evil dictator, he at least brought some social order and stability. Now that Saddam was gone, it destroyed the country, destabilized an entire region which lead to the creation of ISIS etc. We know how this will turn out. More chaos and destabilization in Syria and the middle east. More terrorism which the US swears that it doesn't want. The US isn't fighting against ISIS, rather it insists on creating more chaos and destabilization in the middle east because it has an interest in sabotaging Russia in any ways that it can.
Tag Team Match: Russia & U.S. vs. ISIS & Syria
Lol wut
Syria is currently occupied by Assad, the anti-Assad rebels and ISIS... that's why the whole thing is such a mess. The US supports the Rebels by arming them and giving them weapons, and doesn't want Assad in power. Russia thinks US and Russia should cooperate to eliminate ISIS instead. I think Russia is being the most sensible one.
America is like "Democracy! Fuck yeah!" but just by removing a despot, it's not going to automatically create a democracy, that's why removing Saddam Hussein made things even worse than before.
The unilateral attack against Syria was illegal and a violation of the U.N. Charter. The international law forbids unilateral use of force except in self-defense:
https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-free...ponse-atrocity
Not really a bad thing imo.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
URGENT: Someone on WH Tweet team needs to delete old, inoperative, pre-#MAGA tweets from account. They just lead to confusion!
Trump leans from Obama.jpg
It is disgusting to use chemical weapons on people, especially on children. I don't care what happens to Assad. He is a despicable human being.
I'm not sold on the "official" story that assad attacks civilians.
Russia and Syria are allies. Russia isn't interested in losing another ally in that part of the world to US interests.
There's zero hard evidence that Assad did it -- it's entirely possible that the rebels deployed the chemicals, which aren't even all that difficult to manufacture. Assad, moreover, has every incentive not to draw Western (or even Russian) ire with the use chemical weapons, seeing as how he's been kicking ass using conventional force thanks to his ally in the Kremlin.
If you're pro-regime change because of the Assad regime's crimes, which are indeed substantial, then OK. But consider the fact that the batch of hard-core Jihadi groups (read: Alqaeda) -- armed and supported by Saudi Arabia -- fighting to replace him are only marginally better than ISIS. There is, sadly, no shortage of useful idiots in power eager to carry out Saudi Arabia's foreign policy.
The take away from the Syrian war is that the United States doesn't think twice about supporting Islamist fundamentalists when it lines up with its strategic objectives. Is it too easy to bring up our support for the proto-Alqaeda Mujahideen during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan; is the point too obvious for the mainstream media to bother mentioning?
Last edited by xerx; 04-09-2017 at 11:02 PM.
As an inflexible rule, I no longer trust any claims about "WMDs" made by the American government.
I don't know, but it seems like no one give a shit about the fact that the US is basically out of control (militarily and foreign-policy wise, and now also economically) and is doing all sorts of illegal shit all over the world. Oh, and they're even spying on their allies, and are probably doing all sorts of hacking on them.
Actually, the majority of his base is most assuredly not pumped, at all. In fact they're apoplectic over the whole thing. Check out Twitter, his "fans" are livid and all the intellectual types who backed him are very worried about yet another pointless bullshit war in the ME started at the behest of the vile neocon/neolib establishment (hell even the neo-nazi faction of his base is ready to turn on him over this). Also, fun fact, you'll notice how the MSM suddenly went from hating his guts to gushing their unadulterated love for the man they compared to the Fuhrer shortly after the missile strikes. How telling that they only start to approve of this "horrible person" after he starts bombing brown people for no good reason and ginning up yet another fucking war.
This fact, naturally, pissed off his base even more. The majority of his base hates the MSM with the burning passion of a thousand suns and tends to regard any positive reaction they have to anything Trump does as a very bad thing/warning that he's being compromised by "the swamp". They hate the establishment, so anything that makes it happy is considered a bad thing and believe you me, the establishment just about creamed its pants upon hearing that news if you catch my meaning. The look on the faces of the MSM swine as they gleefully reported on it all made me wanna puke. How any person with any hint of a conscience or soul can be "happy" about a war getting started is beyond my comprehension yet there they were with an orgasmic glow on their faces. Disgusting.
I agree but that always happened however as we scramble to deal with changing climate and mass relocation due to climate impacts people should be concentrating their efforts on sustainable farming and agricultural instead of eating away at each other and creating nonsense
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
The US strikes were justified according to UN law on the grounds of protecting civilians from a dictator who has been attacking them.
However, not having putting the matter up for a vote at a Security Council may well mean that other unsavoury leaders use the US's example to carry out their own nefarious agendas. But putting it up for a vote would probably have meant a veto from at least one, if not two, of the Security Council members. I think that shows that the Security Council should be reformed: perhaps being expanded to say eight permanent members, and preventing one or two minority votes from vetoing resolutions.
Well there's no real justification, the only time the use of military force is justified is when you're being attacked and as an act of self-defense (or defending your allies in an act of collective self-defense). North Korea tortures and kills its own people every day, but if we attack North Korea for that then it will be an act of war. So I guess the US has declared war on Syria, and in fact technically it has declared war on all sorts of countries... all this without consulting the international opinion or the UN, and doing so in a very self-righteous manner.
Ideally, if there were ever to be an armed humanitarian intervention... then it should be done with the premise of an international consensus... which I'm sure, will be a long, messy and torturous process... but at least it will be democratic and eliminate the chances of acting in error. Also all the armies of the world should be organized and commanded under the UN security council and the UN peacekeeping army.
Me neither. Even without getting too conspiracy-ish, it'd be easy for ISIS to gas some civilians to draw the US into the war against Syria. Assad has no reason to use chemical weapons at this point, he's winning the war and shouldn't want to attract that sort of attention. Seems like Trump had to do something or look bad, so he does a minimal strike, even notifying Russia, so he can say "Alright, the chemical weapons are destroyed, look at how decisive and capable I am, now we don't need a real war leave me alone."
The UN Charter says that civilians should not be targeted, and that states should assist the UN in accordance with the Charter. Starting a war against a state that is attacking its own civilians is a justifiable cause.
I agree that ideally, the UN would be responsible for all military actions. Preserving life is a higher priority than preserving democracy. If an international consensus needs the agreement of all five members of the Security Council, any of whom can veto a Resolution, it could only be considered a democracy in a loose sense. Two of the permanent members are authoritarian regimes with questionable and/or non-existent democracies in their own countries - that they represent hundreds of millions of people is not really relevant.
Well, starting a war means that you're using military force to attack another state until you force another party to sign a peace treaty. But I mean, it's complicated though. Every sovereign nations have a right to self-determination, and do we really have the right to tell a country how to run its own state using force, even if we disagree with it? I mean sure, human rights of every citizens should be upheld, that's why we condemn nations when there have been severe human rights violations, and sometimes may put economic sanctions on them etc. But it would not be justified to start a war just because we don't agree with how a country is run. Some countries may have the death penalty and some may not, and some countries may have severe human rights violations and not treat their citizens properly. But we don't start a war over it.
So the basic rule of thumb is... it would be illegal to attack another country unless it was attacked first and in an act of self-defense, or unless it was authorized by the UN Security Council, which is written in the Article 2 of the UN charter:
Article 2(4):
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-cha...r-i/index.html
I mean yeah, the current state of the UN is a mess and not exactly ideal, but at the same time, it's the only organization with the semblance of an international government that we have that can truly bring international peace and stability. I mean the UN was created mostly in order to not repeat the same mistakes of WW1 & WW2 again. I don't think the US acting on its own, ignoring any orders or condemnations of the UN, ignoring the international law and acting as the sole world police, is going to make the world more peaceful. In fact, the world seems to be much more chaotic and instable lately precisely because of it. Ironically, it's the US that was mostly responsible for the creation of the UN, as well as that it's the biggest financial contributor to the organization...
Sure, but any country could just say that initiating war against a state that is attacking its own civilians is consistent with the Purposes of the United Nations (protecting the rights of the individual, maintaining "international peace and security" etc.). Perhaps the UN should make it clear that such wars should not be started with UN consensus, and/or at least until it deems that all peaceful options have been exhausted, if that is what its goal was (I don't think that this would have a desirable outcome, at least until what is meant by an international consensus is radically improved).
Of course I think it unacceptable for time to be wasted at the UN trying to get support you need to get official approval that you know you have no realistic chance of obtaining, while civilians are being killed by their own state. But acting that way will undoubtedly mean unfortunately that nefarious states will see they have no obligation to follow the UN.
Ideally, India, Brazil, Indonesia, and Japan will become permanent Security Council members and each of the world's countries will make up a fair share of the UN budget in order that they do not have an undue influence.
Major victory scored against ISIS.
DHcKg6uWAAAZOlr.jpg
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
