Just put on wbur - theyre now reporting that there is pro trump and anti black graffiti going up in high school males restrooms. They’re now going on about racist and anti semitic graffitiing and tolerance workshops.
+1. Help vets, improve education, make our country a better place. Certainly attempt to use diplomacy abroad and be willing to work with countries, but I really just hate pissing away all this money and getting Americans killed over stupid crap. Also we should probably stop toppling regimes, where has that worked out splendidly for us and not end up blowing up in our face? (legit questions, I assume there may be some, seems like the ones that blow up in our faces blow up bigly)
Does anyone believe Assad used chemical weapons? If i was a dictator looking to maintain power and the most powerful country in the world just elected a leader who said he would support Assad against ISIS, the last thing i would do is do something to revoke that stance. Correct me if i am wrong, but you can thwart your opposition just as efficiently without using such means rendering chemical weapons a means to terrorize, as opposed to stopping. So, i ask again, does it make sense for assad to do this?
This crossed my mind as a last ditch tinfoil hat to try to stir outside opposition against Assad. I mean, who really gains to benefit from this the most?
Yes, just because I disagree with your logic means I believe we should storm in there Team America and wreak havoc.
It’s funny listening to you talk about US military operations and weaponry. WP is primarily used for obscuring locations. It was not against the ROE or any international conventions the US was a signatory of to employ it against combatants in the cases in which it was used. Let me school you a little on how this works- forward observers visually identify targets and request fire/suppression/smoke/illumination on specified target(s) grid coordinates. This is authorized by a COC and then the orders are given to an artillery battery to lay down the appropriate munitions for the task. This is not the same as indiscriminately dropping chemical weapons on known heavily civilian occupied areas. It was never part of the ROE to drop any kind of munition whether it be HE or WP directly onto positions known to be occupied by innocent civilians. If the actions of our troops in Fallujah are the same as Assad’s in your mind you are part of the problem.
Lol, “school me”. That’s because 1) we were one of the few major countries not to sign PIII of the agreement not to use WP against combatants and 2) Fallujah was an urban conflict so we were using it to shell targest in civilian occupied areas. The US DID sign not to use it in proximity to civilian occupied areas so obviously it becomes a bit less black and white as it was all heavily occupied by civilians, if you read any account of that conflict that would be immediately obvious. We were directly shelling WP onto targets which we first denied and then only admitted to only after we were outed by our own troops. The US tries to allege that they managed for the first time in history to completely avoid civilian causalities with these bombs which is where they argue themselves into a grey “non provable” area. Despite that, two journalists did put together a documentary claiming to show footage of WP used on civilian areas including civilians that were killed with it in Fallujah. If they’re right then it’s a warcrime. As it stands, it’s just the trusty US government vs them without further evidence. No matter how you cut it, it’s a highly questionable tactic. Using indiscriminate burning gas or burning metal vs targets in an urban setting is splitting hairs.
There’s no proof, given the limited casualties, that 1) it was even Assad’s forces that triggered those bombs or 2) that they were being indiscriminate. For all we know, ISIS or rebel forces set off a chem weapon to turn opinion against Assad or a conventional bomb may have hit a chemical weapon that was stored. Your “analysis” basically just uses a bunch of assumptions stated as facts.
Ok, so what “action” are you suggesting when you suggested we “take action.” Or are you just saying we should criticism them, ie do nothing ie you really agree with me once we get past the feigned outrage.
But hes also a POS human being so its not like it would be completely out of character for him to do so. It could go either way, I just dont want to flush billions and billions down the toilet (and it is wasted and gone) for the privilege of getting our guys hurt and killed.
If something happened, it can likely be handled diplomatically and with JSOC forces imo. We should call the calvary when we are directly attacked by an opposing force or when there is another Hitler inevitably trying to take over its neighbors at will.
Not sure if you are interested in chess at all but if so check out Magnus on Netflix. Dude played against like 10 grand masters at the same time blindfolded so he couldnt see the boards and won. It was nuts.
we can go he said she said and split hairs about it all day but I don’t think either of us want to do that.
As for Assad’s intentional targets, I don’t think that really matters unless we agree to view him and his regime as having the right to control the region.
Rubio earlier today, “It’s my belief that if you’re Bashar al-Assad and you read that it is no longer a priority of the United States to have you removed from power, I believe that that is an incentive to act with impunity.”
So my take is that a stance on the issue needs to be solidified before a plan of action is developed and employed. Which means congress should take some time from filibustering the Gorsuch nomination and arguing about border walls to discuss indicting this asshole and what viable options there are for dealing with the crisis. Perhaps Trump’s buddy Putin might listen to some diplomatic discussion about putting the choke collar on his boy Assad or else the dude is gonna wake up to a drone strike or seal team six in his bedroom.
*I should state that I am for both of those options but there has to be a plan to transition the government and stabilize the region after the asshat is gone.
We don’t have the ability to do either. This is Syria and not hunting OBL.
Putting a team into a full on military compound of a country’s leader when that country that has a full air force and integrated air defense with Russia backing it is just asking for that team to get slaughtered. A drone would get nowhere near. Not to mention we have even less info on his whereabouts at most times. Even if you did, Russia would just put their next guy in place and you risk initiating a conflict with Russian troops if you accidentally hit some of their guys in the process. Beyond that, what’s your incentive? You think for a second you wouldn’t just unleash a decade of worse reactionary fighting on that population that you created over a few chemical weapons? Maybe another 10 years of US boots on the ground involvement and a newly created ISIS Pt 2 because the idiotic US had to get involved again and destabilize the region?
It’s this sort of lack of learning that boggles my mind, like being transported back to 2002 all over again with the hubris. If we go into that country and further prolong this conflict we deserve every body bag that comes back.
I agree on those points. That is why the diplomatic approach and a more stable relationship with Russia (cringe) is probably the only path to a peaceful solution.
Agree with that. It’s worth keeping in mind that since we got involved with Iraq over a dictator that used chemical weapons - nerve gas - against his population on several occasions, more than 100,000 civilians have died. That more than anything is what I’d like to avoid a sequel of.
Reuters Top News Verified account @ Reuters