War hawk

[goldfinger0303]

Right, but if your first instinct isn't to shoot them,you can't be called trigger-happy

Oh gotcha, I'm sure that's a lot of comfort to the person who's been shot.

How is that at all relevant to my point?

[jmo1121109]

And I'll just throw out the timing. Trump says he's pulling out of Syria, then gets blasted by the Comey book and various other negative press and announces a strike during prime time on Friday night.

I'm more inclined to wonder if the only reason he said yes to the attack, was as a media diversion.

[Durga]

I wasn't aware war hawk meant you had to jump into war in the first immediate opportunity??

[Durga]

He chose war instead of not war, there was nothing here that indicated he HAD to engage in combat. He *chose* to

[goldfinger0303]

So why is it necessary to punish this small scale chemical attack yet overlook a genocide happening on a larger scale elsewhere in the world, or any other number of horrific acts? Does these agreements we have say "if you break the rules we'll bomb the shit out of your country and people"? And acting like Syria is the villain in this is oversimplifying. They've been pushed to this in an attempt to resolve something created by outside forces. The US is largely responsible for the war in Syria as it is, and us interfering in this way has done nothing to help Middle East stability. Just the opposite.

And the very simply answer to "Those with power get to do what they want." is that just because they can, doesn't mean it's right.

Because it's a chemical attack. And the world as a whole has been trying to rid itself of chemical weapons. That is a red line that 197 nation agreed to in 1997. We cannot allow for the normalization of the use of chemical weapons. Full stop.

And did I say it was right that we overlook the others? No. The ongoing atrocities against the Rohingya should be stopped. What Saudi Arabia and Iran are doing to Yemen is just as bad as Syria. The DRC is tearing itself apart and the UN mission there has to be bolstered.

However, what makes Syria different is 1) The proximity and deployment of US forces. We have the means and capability of responding within the immediate area. 2) The presence of Great Powers. It sends a bigger message to rogue actors to watch out if we do it to a country under Russian protection, as well as sends a message to Russia. 3) The limited target/scope. Taking out chemical weapons facilities is a lot easier than trying to take on Myanmar's army, or pacifying warlords in the Congo.

I agree that the US is partially at fault for the situation in Syria, but I would look to three other powers in the region who have had a larger destabilizing influence than the US. You blame us too much.

[goldfinger0303]

Trump literally gets bombarded with negative stories every week. Comeys book may have been a factor, but I would argue it was definitely not the major one.

[goldfinger0303]

He chose war instead of not war, there was nothing here that indicated he HAD to engage in combat. He *chose* to

So you're saying the use of chemical weapons should go unchallenged? That we should be okay with it? We tried diplomatic solutions. They didn't work. We tried economic solutions: they didn't work. We tried limited military action: it didn't work. Please, what other option is there.

[Incrementalist]

Neither Macron nor May is negatively affected by Comey's book, but their governments are also participating in this military strike.

It's difficult to reconcile a multilateral military action with a Trump-specific motivation, especially considering how detested Trump is among Europe's leaders.

[Durga]

He chose war instead of not war, there was nothing here that indicated he HAD to engage in combat. He *chose* to

So you're saying the use of chemical weapons should go unchallenged? That we should be okay with it? We tried diplomatic solutions. They didn't work. We tried economic solutions: they didn't work. We tried limited military action: it didn't work. Please, what other option is there.

I'm sorry, if that's going to be the deciding factor then your country should have attacked Myanmar for genocide a while ago.

[leon1122]

So, goldfinger, you've talked a lot about how terrible chemical weapons are, but you have yet to address why the coalition decided to strike before any evidence has even been gathered. You speak as though Assad being the perpetrator of the chemical attack is a sure thing. Do you have some crystal ball that is feeding you facts unknown to the rest of us?

[Durga]

Why haven't we attacked every country with human rights violations? Why just Syria?

[Randomizer]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/13/politics ... index.html

Got to love that Bolton had to stand near Trump to make sure he kept to his speech. It was hard enough to get Trump to focus on Syria while meeting his military advisors when he kept ranting about Cohen.

Still lying hypocrite Trump campaigned against Clinton telegraphing military strategy and then tweets his attack days before doing it.

[goldfinger0303]

He chose war instead of not war, there was nothing here that indicated he HAD to engage in combat. He *chose* to

So you're saying the use of chemical weapons should go unchallenged? That we should be okay with it? We tried diplomatic solutions. They didn't work. We tried economic solutions: they didn't work. We tried limited military action: it didn't work. Please, what other option is there.

I'm sorry, if that's going to be the deciding factor then your country should have attacked Myanmar for genocide a while ago.

What? What on earth are you even talking about. There are existing international treaties signed committing every nation to the destruction of chemical weapons. They are a scourge the earth should be rid of, like nuclear weapons. Syria was found to have broken this on multiple occasions. They committed again, with Russian promises, to get rid of their stockpile, and have shown that they did not. We have repeatedly engaged with them on this matter for the better part of five years, and have not achieved a satisfactory result. We have military personnel in the area whose lives could be at risk from this.

How is that at all related to the (possible) genocide (definitely atrocities) in Myanmar.

[Incrementalist]

Why haven't we attacked every country with human rights violations? Why just Syria?

Syria has been on the geopolitical radar for a variety of reasons for decades. People in foreign policy build their careers creating plans for various contingencies arising out of Syria, and elsewhere in the region. There are plans on the shelf for military action in Syria.

In other places, it's likely nobody has a plan for dealing with human rights violations; for example, those carried out on the watch of the recently liberalized government of Myanmar. In yet other places, such as North Korea, the high cost and low probability of success deter action.

[goldfinger0303]

Why haven't we attacked every country with human rights violations? Why just Syria?

I literally spelled this out in my response to jmo. Moreover, you haven't answered my question. Are you okay with countries using chemical weapons? Are you okay with a world where countries face no consequences from developing and using chemical weapons while the West has committed to destroying their stockpiles? What alternative was there, when all other paths had been tried and failed.

[Durga]

Why haven't we attacked every country with human rights violations? Why just Syria?

I literally spelled this out in my response to jmo. Moreover, you haven't answered my question. Are you okay with countries using chemical weapons? Are you okay with a world where countries face no consequences from developing and using chemical weapons while the West has committed to destroying their stockpiles? What alternative was there, when all other paths had been tried and failed.

There are also international treaties signed condemning genocide, for one.
Second, obviously not, but do I think that bombing Damascus was the only resort? No I fucking don't. It never is, and violence doesn't stop violence, that's not how fucking dictators work - especially not dictators with Russian backing.

[goldfinger0303]

So, goldfinger, you've talked a lot about how terrible chemical weapons are, but you have yet to address why the coalition decided to strike before any evidence has even been gathered. You speak as though Assad being the perpetrator of the chemical attack is a sure thing. Do you have some crystal ball that is feeding you facts unknown to the rest of us?

First, the OPCW mission will only establish that chemical weapons were used, not who used them. There will never be an independent, verifiable, 100% definite proof of who did it.

That being out of the way, there are two possibilities. 1) Assad did it. 2) Rebels did it. We know Assad has used chemical weapons in the past. We know rebels have too. However, what is more likely in this situation. The US President had just announced he wanted US forces to be leave Syria. Rebel groups are in retreat everywhere. You have the last enclave of rebels in Damascus surrounded, cut off, and under intense bombardment. But negotiations with the last group have stalled. Most rebels had already voluntarily negotiated an evacuation. What better way to force them into surrender than a psychological attack? Russia had promised you would come under no harm. US seems disinterested. Low chance of blowback.

Now, compare this to the odds that US or British intelligence services could 1) Transport chemical weapons to Syria...which is illegal for both countries. I mean, we had to build plants at each of our storage facilities to dispose of them because we made transport of them illegal. 2) Do so through Syrian forces which had encircled this enclave without being detected and 3) Convinced the rebels that the best course of action was to gas themselves.

Now add the layer on top of this that Russia is a serial liar in all international affairs. It lied about the invasion of Ukraine. It lied about Russians being killed in Syria in an attack on US forces. It lied about the elections. Its lying about the attack in Salisbury (OPCW verified the chemical signature the British found. That nerve agent is only produced in Russia). They have no credibility on the international scene.

All of this leads me to believe - just by looking at method and motivation - that it is far more likely that Assad did it than not. Now add on the other claims and "facts" presented by the various media, and my feelings are only solidified.

[Incrementalist]

The one thing that puts May, Macron and Trump on the same page is their need to rebuke Putin. Macron went after Putin publicly a short while ago while standing right next to him. May cannot abide by Russian nerve gas attacks in the UK. And Trump wants to push back against the perception that he is a Russian puppet.

Striking Assad is one way to get at Putin, albeit indirectly, and I think all the parties participating in the strike are motivated to accept basically any evidence of misconduct as a justification for doing so.

[goldfinger0303]

Why haven't we attacked every country with human rights violations? Why just Syria?

I literally spelled this out in my response to jmo. Moreover, you haven't answered my question. Are you okay with countries using chemical weapons? Are you okay with a world where countries face no consequences from developing and using chemical weapons while the West has committed to destroying their stockpiles? What alternative was there, when all other paths had been tried and failed.

There are also international treaties signed condemning genocide, for one.
Second, obviously not, but do I think that bombing Damascus was the only resort? No I fucking don't. It never is, and violence doesn't stop violence, that's not how fucking dictators work - especially not dictators with Russian backing.

I won't get into technical arguments over what is and isn't genocide, but its much more of a grey issue, would you agree? Hard to legally define. Hard to prove as its happening, unless its really egregious. And there are UN missions hard at work in several parts of the world to prevent genocide. But chemical weapons are a real easy one to spot, and one that has international implications.

I agree that violence doesn't stop violence. Negotiating, at the end, is the only thing that ever works long term. But something has to be done to force the other party to the table to negotiate in good faith. Otherwise he'll just keep breaking whatever treaty we make him sign.

[Durga]

I think you're full of shit if you're calling what's going on in Myanmar anything but genocide.

But I'm just going to add, I don't support unilateral action for things like this. It wasn't even a NATO decision.