Syria
Re: Syria
This must be damaging to the D party when Putin is reasonably cautioning against another war... Seriously, who are the remaining Obama supporters? Is there no abuse/betrayal large enough for them to question their loyalty?
Re: Syria
More than likely they fumbled this and did not realize how tired US citizens are of intervening in other countries. I do think the "on purpose" idea is interesting, if unlikely.
I don't consult average people on this stuff (or really care to be honest), as they are clueless. They don't even know the facts about domestic policy, let alone foreign policy. The majority couldn't even find Syria on a map. But, you already know this about me.jennypenny wrote: When you're out talking with people, are they talking about Syria? Maybe where you live they are talking about it more? Here, I've heard a few passing comments (usually just that they hope we don't send troops there), but most conversations I've been a part of over the last couple of weeks have revolved around when open enrollment starts and what people have heard from their employers or union reps.
Re: Syria
We have had a basic disdain for soft power since Bush was elected. Interesting that it is now being used so blatantly against our government. I am interested to see how well this letter is received. The majority won't even read it, but will have tons of opinions on it.Ego wrote:Putin sounds a lot like an American politician appealing to the electorate. I wonder if outsiders are realizing the potential they might have by appealing to Americans as a third-party candidate might.
We've been doing this for years through mouthpiece-ambassadors who get as much press as president or prime minister. The tables have turned.
Re: Syria
Forgot to include this link about the pipelines in my long post:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... -pipelines
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... -pipelines
Re: Syria
This is becoming more entertaining by the minute:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/09/13 ... iser-says/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/ ... YD20130913
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/09/13 ... iser-says/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/ ... YD20130913
Re: Syria
Felix wrote:This is becoming more entertaining by the minute:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/09/13 ... iser-says/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/ ... YD20130913
These are so blatant, it's laughable. A former Reagan official releases an anti-Obama opinion on Fox News? Who knew that would happen?
McCain doing the same thing in the Pravda that Putin did in NYT seems like a bad idea. The first move and probable winning move was already made by Putin in this part of the Syrian issue. Continuing to play this game just gives him more credibility and influence. Especially, when he is semi-correct on the Syrian issue (no need to bomb) and the vast majority of the US public agrees that force is not necessary.
Re: Syria
No less deserving than Obama, which is to say, not deserving. Seems this award has been corrupted too.
The article by the Washington Times interests me more than the actual Putin nomination. The Times is a very conservative paper and seem to be using someone they normally wouldn't help to hurt Obama. Not on the reporting of the nomination, which is fine. In the last part of the article they blatantly make or allow a ridiculous exaggeration:
"Critics of the nomination also say Mr. Putin has led the Russian delegation at the U.N. Security Council into blocking international intervention in Syria that could have prevented the deaths of 100,000-plus civilians."
That's completely ridiculous. The US wasn't going to nuke them. Hate blinds sometimes.
- jennypenny
- Posts: 6862
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
Re: Syria
Now we know why Bannon was bounced from the NSC.
I'm beyond disappointed in tonight's actions. How can they even be sure of the facts yet to be sure they aren't being baited?
I'm beyond disappointed in tonight's actions. How can they even be sure of the facts yet to be sure they aren't being baited?
Re: Syria
I'd say they were being tested, not necessarily baited.jennypenny wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2017 9:32 pmNow we know why Bannon was bounced from the NSC.
I'm beyond disappointed in tonight's actions. How can they even be sure of the facts yet to be sure they aren't being baited?
Re: Syria
I'm not sure how this reaction is a surprise. It's not like Trump is known for a thick skin and the chemical use brought out a lot of criticism from Congress that can sound very personal to a guy like Trump.
Plus, the guy is a ping pong ball. He jumps from one issue to another really fast, so it seems highly unlikely he does more than skim the surface or put in a lot of thought on any one issue.
The big question is the response to Assad if he does this again or expands the use of chemical weapons to multiple instances. If you make the decision for the first strike, you almost have to followup with continued strikes for new incidents. If you don't, the first strike could be viewed as weaker than not doing anything. This, of course, could have consequences with Russia and Iran.
Plus, the guy is a ping pong ball. He jumps from one issue to another really fast, so it seems highly unlikely he does more than skim the surface or put in a lot of thought on any one issue.
The big question is the response to Assad if he does this again or expands the use of chemical weapons to multiple instances. If you make the decision for the first strike, you almost have to followup with continued strikes for new incidents. If you don't, the first strike could be viewed as weaker than not doing anything. This, of course, could have consequences with Russia and Iran.
- jennypenny
- Posts: 6862
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
Re: Syria
I'm disappointed because this is always our reaction. It's not just Trump. Every president drops bombs on somebody. Obama wanted to execute this exact plan but congress wouldn't let him. I was hoping Trump's isolationist tendencies would win out. Judging by the positive bipartisan reaction in congress, I assume the administration will see this action through to the end, whatever that turns out to be.
Please don't get me wrong, I abhor what happened in Syria. It's just ... how many countries can we be at war with at once?
Please don't get me wrong, I abhor what happened in Syria. It's just ... how many countries can we be at war with at once?
Re: Syria
I'm not arguing against your suggestion that we need to give these actions more thought and should probably do less of them (including drone strikes). I'm just suggesting Trump isn't the guy who will reliably follow that course of action. Even if he does for a few months it's highly likely his personality won't be able to keep making the same decision consistently. He just seems to need chaos constantly and has no attention span, which makes him very unreliable.
-
- Posts: 5406
- Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:28 am
- Location: Wettest corner of Orygun
Re: Syria
The other problem with the action is I seriously doubt Trump considered all the chess move options. We've just lost coordination with Russian air strikes, China doesn't care (e.g. oh, I see you're busy elsewhere), EU nations dislike unilateral action, North Korea is on a completely different agenda so action in Syria isn't sending a message that will be received, and every muslim nation is going to see it as further proof of US bullying unless they're on Turkey's side in the Syria conflict.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 16159
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
Re: Syria
A cruise missile strike on a military airfield is a proportional response and just about the smallest action one can take while still taking an action. Low cost attack on a low value target. Basically a slap on the wrist. I also see this as "testing". If this is chess, it would be the Queen's gambit. Doing nothing would have handed control over to Syria/Iran/Russia. This would not have been smart for an administration that is looking to increase its dependence/control of Middle East energy---unpossible to be(come) isolationist and still import so much oil.
Re: Syria
Judging from the immediate responses, it looks like Trump is getting good diplomatic advice.George the original one wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2017 11:02 amThe other problem with the action is I seriously doubt Trump considered all the chess move options.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/world/syr ... -reaction/
-
- Posts: 1240
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:14 pm
- Location: Falls City, OR
Re: Syria
My first reaction to hearing about the gas attack was, why would Assad do that? The stories we see seem to try to paint him as some crazy who just loves hurting people. For once I'm inclined to agree with Scott Adams' take:
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1592649810 ... persuasion
He wrote that before Trump's swift and scary looking response.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1592649810 ... persuasion
He wrote that before Trump's swift and scary looking response.
Re: Syria
Right question. Wrong answer.
Both Putin and Trump needed to prove that Trump isn't Putin's poodle. How many days ago was it that Comey confirmed before congress that the FBI was investigating the claim that Putin installed Trump in the White House and how the Trump campaign was coordinated through Moscow? I predict a lot of choreographed saber rattling with many innocents caught in the middle for years to come. Swift and scary indeed.
Both Putin and Trump needed to prove that Trump isn't Putin's poodle. How many days ago was it that Comey confirmed before congress that the FBI was investigating the claim that Putin installed Trump in the White House and how the Trump campaign was coordinated through Moscow? I predict a lot of choreographed saber rattling with many innocents caught in the middle for years to come. Swift and scary indeed.