He will be criticized for this but he would have been criticized if he didn't. He should have just stayed out of it. We should not be in the middle East.
Wrong forum for this, but it's Saturday and I'm lazy.
Point 1: What Superman said.
Point 2: And what is the difference between this and last year's bombing run? Sound, fury, Assad goes back to business as usual, bluster, bluster, another bombing run? With how last year's didn't have any actual effect on anything (obviously, since there was a need to do it all over again this year), it just comes off as more a loud, destructive way to yell at someone than actual action.
Point 3: And sweet fucking jebus, if you're going to have a military strike against a country for reasons, how about keeping Mr. No Self Control away from his Twitter, so he doesn't repeatedly brag about how asses will be kicked and names will be taken. It kind of detracts from whatever meaning and purpose the action has when (a) You're giving them a verbal warning so they have plenty of time to clear out target locations and (b) The leader is treating potentially serious military conflict like he's a little kid playing with GI Joe figures. "Okay Cobra Commander, now I'm bringing Snake-Eyes in a HELICOPTER!!!!" FUNFACT: Snake-Eyes, by himself, would accomplish more in Syria than this bombing run.
Kinda weird to be bombing a country for chemical attacks on the citizens, which we won’t allow to flee to our country.
posted by HereticWrong forum for this, but it's Saturday and I'm lazy.
Point 1: What Superman said.
Point 2: And what is the difference between this and last year's bombing run? Sound, fury, Assad goes back to business as usual, bluster, bluster, another bombing run? With how last year's didn't have any actual effect on anything (obviously, since there was a need to do it all over again this year), it just comes off as more a loud, destructive way to yell at someone than actual action.
Point 3: And sweet fucking jebus, if you're going to have a military strike against a country for reasons, how about keeping Mr. No Self Control away from his Twitter, so he doesn't repeatedly brag about how asses will be kicked and names will be taken. It kind of detracts from whatever meaning and purpose the action has when (a) You're giving them a verbal warning so they have plenty of time to clear out target locations and (b) The leader is treating potentially serious military conflict like he's a little kid playing with GI Joe figures. "Okay Cobra Commander, now I'm bringing Snake-Eyes in a HELICOPTER!!!!" FUNFACT: Snake-Eyes, by himself, would accomplish more in Syria than this bombing run.
My bad. Even though it's Government related, I wasn't sure if really a political thread.
point #2 - this bombing run may have been worth while if drumpf would have gone after the right target. His first run last year (at least) took out some helicopters. Like you said " (a) You're giving them a verbal warning so they have plenty of time to clear out target locations " drumpf should have also targeted the delivery source - helicopters at military bases, but that would have really upset Putin.
What does drumpf really believe, was accomplished?
The U.S. ambassador in Moscow, John Huntsman, said in a video, "Before we took action, the United States communicated with" Russia to "reduce the danger of any Russian or civilian casualties."
posted by Laley23Kinda weird to be bombing a country for chemical attacks on the citizens, which we won’t allow to flee to our country.
Why is that weird? One has nothing to do with the other.
posted by iclfan2Why is that weird? One has nothing to do with the other.
Does this mean USA is once again the world's police? Why does USA suddenly care?
posted by HOF on coattailsDoes this mean USA is once again the world's police? Why does USA suddenly care?
When did they stop? They clearly don’t give a shit about African countries killing their people or Venezuela either. Maybe it’s the oil?
I don’t really mind bombings, personally. Fuck risking American troops tho. And I also don’t agree with just randomly taking in refugees.
The bombings were extremely accurate and doubt they killed anyone. They bombed sites where Syria is making snd storing chemical weapans that they have used over and over again. Assad kill over 500,000 yet?
Plus this was a joint attack. We didnt Do this with help. I doubt we do do it without it.
posted by HOF on coattailsMy bad. Even though it's Government related, I wasn't sure if really a political thread.
point #2 - this bombing run may have been worth while if drumpf would have gone after the right target. His first run last year (at least) took out some helicopters. Like you said " (a) You're giving them a verbal warning so they have plenty of time to clear out target locations " drumpf should have also targeted the delivery source - helicopters at military bases, but that would have really upset Putin.
What does drumpf really believe, was accomplished?
The U.S. ambassador in Moscow, John Huntsman, said in a video, "Before we took action, the United States communicated with" Russia to "reduce the danger of any Russian or civilian casualties."
Anybody who uses drumpf unironically is a retard.
posted by supermanAnybody who uses drumpf unironically is a retard.
urine-onically?!?
posted by iclfan2When did they stop? They clearly don’t give a shit about African countries killing their people or Venezuela either. Maybe it’s the oil?
I don’t really mind bombings, personally. Fuck risking American troops tho. And I also don’t agree with just randomly taking in refugees.
But we are in Africa. I was there last year for 9 months.
US forces are in Africa and do have one permanent base there and are active on a few fronts, notably in Somalia but also throughout the continent. There is quite a bit of MIL2MIL training that goes on there training the African Nations in how to fend for themselves.
My take on this whole thing is........
Chemical warfare is nasty, nasty stuff.
Doing so on your own population in reprehensible.
Someone has to stop it from happening.
If not us, whom?
Obviously no one else has the capability, resources or human decency to do so.
posted by thavoiceMy take on this whole thing is........
Chemical warfare is nasty, nasty stuff.
Doing so on your own population in reprehensible.
Someone has to stop it from happening.
If not us, whom?
Obviously no one else has the capability, resources or human decency to do so.
I hate to be a tin foil guy, but I would like to see evidence Assad actually used chemical weapons on his own people.
posted by like_thatI hate to be a tin foil guy, but I would like to see evidence Assad actually used chemical weapons on his own people.
You are not wrong to ask. One of the credited Intel newsletter I get every morning, KGS Nightwatch, examined local sources and is not convinced that a large chemical attack occurred. They suggest the lack of evidence from the international inspectors, the lack of verification from the Red Cross/ Crescent of chemical victims means while a gas attack may have occurred, it may have been only a limited chlorine gas attack.
That same newsletter also said that Russia and one of the anti Assad groups mentioned that Syria intercepted over 50% of the missiles launched and thus really limited the action of the strike. Also, Syrians were partying in the streets as they saw the strike as below what they expected. So, it may not have had the desired impact as we thought.
I'm not saying any of that is true, but does give me pause regarding the attack and missile strikes.
posted by like_thatI hate to be a tin foil guy, but I would like to see evidence Assad actually used chemical weapons on his own people.
Come on.
posted by like_thatI hate to be a tin foil guy, but I would like to see evidence Assad actually used chemical weapons on his own people.
Very valid question.
I know a previous incident they had video of kids and locals who were gassed as they suffered.
Who gassed them that time? For certain.....I don't know.
This time, if it indeed did occur, that same question remains the same.
To elaborate a little bit on the person who said we don't do or care about Africa. Here is an article written about something done there during my time. I am one of the Mzungu's in the team/class photo.
posted by ptown_trojans_1You are not wrong to ask. One of the credited Intel newsletter I get every morning, KGS Nightwatch, examined local sources and is not convinced that a large chemical attack occurred. They suggest the lack of evidence from the international inspectors, the lack of verification from the Red Cross/ Crescent of chemical victims means while a gas attack may have occurred, it may have been only a limited chlorine gas attack.
That same newsletter also said that Russia and one of the anti Assad groups mentioned that Syria intercepted over 50% of the missiles launched and thus really limited the action of the strike. Also, Syrians were partying in the streets as they saw the strike as below what they expected. So, it may not have had the desired impact as we thought.
I'm not saying any of that is true, but does give me pause regarding the attack and missile strikes.
The thing is.....most locals would not have been affected by the attacks and likely didn't notice much. If there were missile attacks on some of our bases most people would not see, hear or be affected one bit other than what the media would show, which in Syria would be state run.
Reports state they wont allow the inspectors to go in and check that area of the suspected attack.
posted by ptown_trojans_1You are not wrong to ask. One of the credited Intel newsletter I get every morning, KGS Nightwatch, examined local sources and is not convinced that a large chemical attack occurred. They suggest the lack of evidence from the international inspectors, the lack of verification from the Red Cross/ Crescent of chemical victims means while a gas attack may have occurred, it may have been only a limited chlorine gas attack.
That same newsletter also said that Russia and one of the anti Assad groups mentioned that Syria intercepted over 50% of the missiles launched and thus really limited the action of the strike. Also, Syrians were partying in the streets as they saw the strike as below what they expected. So, it may not have had the desired impact as we thought.
I'm not saying any of that is true, but does give me pause regarding the attack and missile strikes.
Horseshit!
Inspectors not allowed to go in, and by all accounts all the tomahawk missiles from the Higgins nailed their targets.
Try again.
posted by thavoiceThe thing is.....most locals would not have been affected by the attacks and likely didn't notice much. If there were missile attacks on some of our bases most people would not see, hear or be affected one bit other than what the media would show, which in Syria would be state run.
Reports state they wont allow the inspectors to go in and check that area of the suspected attack.
posted by QuakerOats
Horseshit!
Inspectors not allowed to go in, and by all accounts all the tomahawk missiles from the Higgins nailed their targets.
Try again.
Hey, I wasn't saying any of it was true, just that it gave me pause as before we struck all the facts on what happened and why were not known.
Sure enough, the newsletter this morning gave an update stating the Russian briefing was a shitshow and that the notion that most of the missiles were intercepted may not be true. The Russians mentioned airfields, which were not targeted at all.
Also, the human rights groups need to account for their own versions which now do not look credible. Those groups have been pretty good with their info over the last five years. More evidence is also coming out regarding actual interviews with those impacted on the chemical attacks, and sounds like chlorine gas and not sarin. The OPCW is now allowed access to verify and we should know more hopefully soon.
Make no mistake, Syria is an absolute shitshow and likely the worst place on earth. Russia was using the area to basically field test their new weapons. No one really is in charge and how to fix it? Above my pay grade!
We think we get fake news in the US.....?...just think how bad it is in countries with state run media. I know one country claimed that terrorists stole a huge amount of uranium to build bombs.
They did so for one reason.....for The US to be more aggressive against the group but it was a total fabrication, and that is in a country who we are helping and they want us there . Cannot imagine the news from places like Syria. When they said13 shot down I just had to laugh, they couldn't do that even if we gave them the time, trajectory and grid coordinates of the targets.
posted by ptown_trojans_1Sure enough, the newsletter this morning gave an update stating the Russian briefing was a shitshow and that the notion that most of the missiles were intercepted may not be true.
You should lose all confidence in this newsletter if at this point they are still unable to pull the trigger and call bullshit on that claim.
posted by majorsparkYou should lose all confidence in this newsletter if at this point they are still unable to pull the trigger and call bullshit on that claim.
Yeah, they did state that the claims were dubious and that those that made those claims need to explain what they saw.
The newsletter, KGS Nightwatch is pretty damn spot on over the years. It is an around the world security brief and analysis delivered every morning via email. It is one of my go to reads every morning.
I went with good in the poll (at least I think, I clicked submit vote twice and nothing happened)
My thoughts:
Someone has to stop Assad, it's not going to be another country.
I wish we would've held off to see more evidence that it was Asaad.
Russia's statement was scary, it seems like shit could pop off at any second.