War hawk

by **leon1122** » Sun Apr 15, 2018 9:51 am

So, on a tangential note, I've been watching some UN conferences and the Russian response to the strike, and I can't help but notice that Russia's translators are consistently worse than those of other nations. They mumble a lot and stumble all over their words, whereas the other translators are able to maintain a smooth flow. Is anyone else noticing this?

by **PRINCE WILLIAM** » Sun Apr 15, 2018 9:07 am

To call a leader war hawk is an oversimplification in my opinion. As an ancient writer said, empires are not maintained with timidity. To lead on of the two great powers of the world means you need to take arms against an enemy, no reasonable leader will go immediately to war but a policy of avoiding war in all costs will harm the country's interests in many ways and this is true not only for Trump but for everyone. When exactly is the right moment to take arms is a sign of a wise leader.

by **leon1122** » Sun Apr 15, 2018 6:53 am

What we really need is a clean slate. Fire everyone in the CIA and NSA and start the hiring process fresh. These intelligence agencies have turned into cults that don't have Americans' best interests in mind.

by **Fluminator** » Sun Apr 15, 2018 6:27 am

When Clinton's campaign platform basically was to get involved in the Syrian war, I think it was reasonable to assume the person who campaigned against it would be less of a war hawk.

Sad he's just as bad in the end.

by **leon1122** » Sun Apr 15, 2018 4:23 am

CommanderByron wrote: ↑
Sun Apr 15, 2018 12:29 am

leon1122 wrote: ↑
Sat Apr 14, 2018 10:02 pm

How is overthrowing the Assad regime considered to be "stabilizing" the government? Assad is the closest thing we have to a stable government in the country. If anything, we should be helping him defeat the rebels. You can also thank (in part) Assad for the fact that Syria is no longer the anchored heart of ISIS, as he did as much to fight them as any of the Western powers.
I don’t disagree. However, his people have shown an interest in a new government. He was given the opportunity to be a part of that and chose instead to use chemical weapons. At this time a long-term stabilizer is a new government free of the burdens of the past government or the rebels. It’s about legitimacy.

That's bullshit Western propaganda for you. Assad enjoys broad support from the Syrian people, and the chemical attack was a staged farce.

by **Sweeny** » Sun Apr 15, 2018 12:43 am

This strike was cleared with the Russians well in advance.

Nothing was really damaged. Three people are reported dead. That is barely even possible in a missile strike on a city. No mission critical Syrian assets were even scratched.

The Russian response was non existent. No antimissile elements were deployed. Everyone buttoned down nice and cozy like for a thunderstorm they saw coming the day before on radar.

The timing was perfect for distracting from Trumps mind boggling legal problems. It is obvious that Trump cleared this Potemkin charade with Putin first.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Sun Apr 15, 2018 12:42 am

CommanderByron wrote: ↑
Sat Apr 14, 2018 9:15 pm
Syria is not yet the anchored heart of a massive terrorist organization like Iraq and Afghanistan were;

Uhhh, which terrorist organisation was "anchored" in Iraq when the west attacked Iraq?

by **CommanderByron** » Sun Apr 15, 2018 12:32 am

Too late for that now. Now he will either retain control until he dies or do something so wrong even Russia stops protecting him and allows him to be killed in the style of ghadafi

by **CommanderByron** » Sun Apr 15, 2018 12:31 am

The smart thing was for Assad to step down early, offer to help draft a more democratic constitution and make himself very rich on book deals and manipulation of the economy through politics. He’d get to pretty much retire, and the Syrian people get a government they won’t try to fight.

by **CommanderByron** » Sun Apr 15, 2018 12:29 am

leon1122 wrote: ↑
Sat Apr 14, 2018 10:02 pm

How is overthrowing the Assad regime considered to be "stabilizing" the government? Assad is the closest thing we have to a stable government in the country. If anything, we should be helping him defeat the rebels. You can also thank (in part) Assad for the fact that Syria is no longer the anchored heart of ISIS, as he did as much to fight them as any of the Western powers.

I don’t disagree. However, his people have shown an interest in a new government. He was given the opportunity to be a part of that and chose instead to use chemical weapons. At this time a long-term stabilizer is a new government free of the burdens of the past government or the rebels. It’s about legitimacy.

by **Incrementalist** » Sat Apr 14, 2018 10:16 pm

The strike is not really about chemical weapons in Syria, or Trump, or Assad vs. anyone.

It's (mostly) about May vs. Putin, with Trump getting a way to shake the "Putin's puppet" label without the incredible hazard of having to think it through for himself, and Macron along for the ride because he hates Putin even more than he hates Trump.

May simply can't have the Russians engaging in chemical attacks in the UK, against Skripal or anyone else.

by **leon1122** » Sat Apr 14, 2018 10:02 pm

CommanderByron wrote: ↑
Sat Apr 14, 2018 9:15 pm
Syria is not yet the anchored heart of a massive terrorist organization like Iraq and Afghanistan were; so acting now to stabilize what was a stable government only 5 years ago should be the priority. Getting the Syrian people to sit down and agree to terms of peace even if at the barrel of a gun should be a priority. Assad needs to abdicate or die, and the UN should be the one's making it so.

How is overthrowing the Assad regime considered to be "stabilizing" the government? Assad is the closest thing we have to a stable government in the country. If anything, we should be helping him defeat the rebels. You can also thank (in part) Assad for the fact that Syria is no longer the anchored heart of ISIS, as he did as much to fight them as any of the Western powers.

by **Randomizer** » Sat Apr 14, 2018 9:57 pm

Missiles and bombs are cheaper to use than sending in ground troops because the casualties are enemy combatants and civilians from usually other countries. So less negative publicity back home with no allied lives lost.

Look at how quickly Reagan withdrew US marines from Lebanon after the Beirut barracks truck bomb. Or arms for hostages with Iran. This started the destruction of US policy in the Mid East where we are still considered cowards that can easily be made to cave in to their demands.

Trump's firing missiles isn't going to change things because Assad wasn't affected and Iran will resupply him for military losses. Russia will protect Assad from most threats.

by **ksako8** » Sat Apr 14, 2018 9:50 pm

leon1122 wrote: ↑
Sat Apr 14, 2018 9:32 am

ksako8 wrote: ↑
Sat Apr 14, 2018 9:04 am
So where is the proof and justification for Americas invasion of Grenada?
That was a straight up regime change invasion. There wasn't even an attempt to hide it.

There was an attempt to hide. The US claimed a few students were in danger.

by **Octavious** » Sat Apr 14, 2018 9:40 pm

jmo1121109 wrote: ↑
Sat Apr 14, 2018 7:27 pm
Here's the part I find the most insane. We fired around 118 Tomahawk missiles at Syria. They cost around 830,000 apiece (I used the lowest estimate I could find). So about 93 million dollars in total. The price to replace all the lead filled pipes in Flint Michigan, where the government water bottle service just ended and people don't have access to clean water, is 55 million. Which the US Government says it can't afford.

The government's priorities are so messed up when we're willing to spend money to blow up other people but not to provide basic necessities of life to our own people.

It's one of those surprisingly little known facts, but missiles have use by dates. If you don't use them by a certain time they have to be disposed of anyway. It's entirely possible that the effective cost of firing the missiles on the military budget is zero. Most of the other costs are little different from standard opps and training. Frankly the financial cost should be irrelevant compared to other arguments, but if you are worried you shouldn't be.

by **Peregrine Falcon** » Sat Apr 14, 2018 9:17 pm

Durga wrote: ↑
Sat Apr 14, 2018 2:56 am

leon1122 wrote: ↑
Sat Apr 14, 2018 2:55 am
Perhaps we need a WWIII so that people start realizing war isn't all fun and games, bombing third world countries with impunity. Perhaps when all is said and done, we'll get the chance to start over again.
Yeah because that worked really well the first and second time

Well... After WWI, we got the League of Nations.... Which was a good idea, but didn't work.
After WWII, we got the United Nations, which works better than the LoN, but still doesn't work very well.
Maybe we'd get something that actually works after WWIII? I personally would hope for something with at least some coercive power to ensure actual action on climate change before that ends up killing us all anyways.

VillageIdiot wrote: ↑
Sat Apr 14, 2018 3:41 am
Can we throw in some Canadian politic talks on here to freshen things up?

We really should start a Canadian politics thread... Beats this Trump distraction. (Because he is really easy to watch, regardless of one's political affiliation.)

by **CommanderByron** » Sat Apr 14, 2018 9:15 pm

On one hand I am very much in favor of organized international intervention when a sovereign state can not provide for it's people security and safety. On the other hand I don't view it as a burden meant for the US alone. Unfortunately the U.N is broken because the security council exists. So I am torn here. Because I do think the atrocities taking place in Syria need stopped, and I do think that leaving Syria to rot only creates a threat later down the road. Syria is not yet the anchored heart of a massive terrorist organization like Iraq and Afghanistan were; so acting now to stabilize what was a stable government only 5 years ago should be the priority. Getting the Syrian people to sit down and agree to terms of peace even if at the barrel of a gun should be a priority. Assad needs to abdicate or die, and the UN should be the one's making it so.

by **leon1122** » Sat Apr 14, 2018 8:46 pm

jmo1121109 wrote: ↑
Sat Apr 14, 2018 7:27 pm
Here's the part I find the most insane. We fired around 118 Tomahawk missiles at Syria. They cost around 830,000 apiece (I used the lowest estimate I could find). So about 93 million dollars in total. The price to replace all the lead filled pipes in Flint Michigan, where the government water bottle service just ended and people don't have access to clean water, is 55 million. Which the US Government says it can't afford.

The government's priorities are so messed up when we're willing to spend money to blow up other people but not to provide basic necessities of life to our own people.

The arms industry has to rake in the dough somehow.

by **CroakandDagger** » Sat Apr 14, 2018 8:46 pm

Something something military-industrial complex.

by **goldfinger0303** » Sat Apr 14, 2018 8:33 pm

jmo1121109 wrote: ↑
Sat Apr 14, 2018 7:27 pm
Here's the part I find the most insane. We fired around 118 Tomahawk missiles at Syria. They cost around 830,000 apiece (I used the lowest estimate I could find). So about 93 million dollars in total. The price to replace all the lead filled pipes in Flint Michigan, where the government water bottle service just ended and people don't have access to clean water, is 55 million. Which the US Government says it can't afford.

The government's priorities are so messed up when we're willing to spend money to blow up other people but not to provide basic necessities of life to our own people.

Yeah, I don't disagree with you there

War hawk

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: War hawk

Re: War hawk

Re: War hawk

Re: War hawk

Re: War hawk

Re: War hawk

Re: War hawk

Re: War hawk

Re: War hawk

Re: War hawk

Re: War hawk

Re: War hawk

Re: War hawk

Re: War hawk

Re: War hawk

Re: War hawk

Re: War hawk

Re: War hawk

Re: War hawk

Re: War hawk

Re: War hawk