webdiplomacy.net

leon1122 wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 14, 2018 9:31 am

Octavious wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 14, 2018 8:34 am

Genuine question, leon. What sort of proof would you need to see to convince you?

I'd like to see a UN chemical weapons report indicting Assad for the attack. So far, they have never once been able to prove that Assad launched a chemical attack.

Well, you do realize that the purposes of these investigations are not to blame a side, right? When the OPCW goes in, they're merely looking for evidence a chemical weapon was used, and what it was. That's where they end their investigation. Also, the strikes did not occur near the area that was gassed, so the investigation should not be impeded

Okay, I would like to correct my earlier statement. In some cases, OPCW does blame a side. Their joint investigation with the UN into a 2017 attack officially blamed the Syrian government. I was just going off their investigation into the Salisbury attacks as their traditional modus operandi.

That being said, the burden of proof can be found here

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.

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

Something something military-industrial complex.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.