What would you do in Syria

[*bfine32*]

(04-08-2017, 08:39 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Have you ever taken any sort of SAT or other standardized test that required you to read more than one sentence at a time and answer a few questions about them?

Nope. I've pretty much just stuck with reading one sentence at a time. But you go Evelyn Woodhead. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-08-2017, 12:08 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: In an ideal world it should be by a coalition but getting 50 leaders who have their own interests in mind on the same page isn't always obtainable in diplomacy. That's a lot of leaders and we could be spending a lot of time sitting on our hands waiting for leader 50 to approve something that needs immediate response. After thinking about it more that's actually a pretty bad idea. Why own your own military if you need 50 leaders from around the world to vote on how you get to use it even on the most minor of scales? We're not talking about dropping an atom bomb that causes mass destruction to the habitat or anything.

It has nothing to do with throwing your junk on the table and saying "We're #1" it's between right and wrong because no one else will or is able to do it. Do you always lean on your peers to form your opinions? I doubt it. I'd bet there have been moments in your life you were in the minority on something you felt was wrong. There's nothing wrong with forming your own judgements as long as they stay in the realm of reality.

Also there is always the fact that other leaders have their own interests in mind. Why would you spend a dime to help the U.S. send a message when you have your own economy to worry about which likely isn't near the U.S in strength? You may be with them morally but that doesn't mean you are willing to spend the money and answer to everybody back home about how the money was spent.

Helping us with what? The message has already been signed, sealed and delivered.





April 11, 2014 is the first chemical attack I'm referring to.

The US is a permanent member of the UN Security Council whose job it is to maintain international peace and security IAW international law. The US is completely hypocritical to attack Syria for violating international law when the US isn't following the UN charter regarding the use of military force they are supposed to enforce as a member of the UN Security Council.

[CageTheBengal]

(04-08-2017, 03:02 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The US is a permanent member of the UN Security Council whose job it is to maintain international peace and security IAW international law.  The US is completely hypocritical to attack Syria for violating international law when the US isn't following the UN charter regarding the use of military force they are supposed to enforce as a member of the UN Security Council.

So what's the proper way to punish Syria?

[Dill]

(04-08-2017, 01:54 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh I thought you asked     Why diverge from the response set by past agreement and diplomacy?

I failed to see that you were being more specific in your query. I thought you may have been talking about using Chemical weapons

I did ask     "Why diverge from the response set by past agreement and diplomacy?"

But that question was immediately after this one: "Why could the US not follow UN Security Council Resolution 2118 and go to the UN for international support/sanction for military action against Syria? "

So I asked two questions regarding the US response to Assad's use of chemical weapons. The second was a variation/extension of the first.  

There are two context clues which should enable one to read the sentences together and understand how the second was related to the first.

1) Moving from one sentence to the other, there is no explicit change of subject.

2) An alternative interpretation, such as that the question referenced Assad rather than the US, would have strained logic and credulity. Why ask why Assad did not work through the UN to attack himself?  Whereas the question makes perfect sense and continues the thought of the previous sentence if read as referencing the US. Why should the US diverge from its own precedents, agreements, and standards?

[*bfine32*]

(04-08-2017, 05:23 PM)Dill Wrote: I did ask     "Why diverge from the response set by past agreement and diplomacy?"

But that question was immediately after this one: "Why could the US not follow UN Security Council Resolution 2118 and go to the UN for international support/sanction for military action against Syria? "

So I asked two questions regarding the US response to Assad's use of chemical weapons. The second was a variation/extension of the first.  

There are two context clues which should enable one to read the sentences together and understand how the second was related to the first.

1) Moving from one sentence to the other, there is no explicit change of subject.

2) An alternative interpretation, such as that the question referenced Assad rather than the US, would have strained logic and credulity. Why ask why Assad did not work through the UN to attack himself?  Whereas the question makes perfect sense and continues the thought of the previous sentence if read as referencing the US. Why should the US diverge from its own precedents, agreements, and standards?

Oh. OK. They could (you most likely meant "why did they not" or that could just be my alternate impression) follow the UN route, they could also strike without their permission as we have Troops on the ground there and The Leader of that country has shown he has no problem employing chemical weapons. 

We choose option B as being in the best interest of our National Security and most of the civilized world has applauded the choice. 

 

[Dill]

(04-08-2017, 12:08 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: April 11, 2014 is the first chemical attack I'm referring to.

That attack supposedly involved Chlorine, right, not nerve agents.


It is questionable whether that could enter into a calculus for UN/US response.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-08-2017, 05:10 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: So what's the proper way to punish Syria?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_678

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-08-2017, 06:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh. OK. They could (you most likely meant "why did they not" or that could just be my alternate impression) follow the UN route, they could also strike without their permission as we have Troops on the ground there and The Leader of that country has shown he has no problem employing chemical weapons. 

We choose option B as being in the best interest of our National Security and most of the civilized world has applauded the choice. 

 

(04-08-2017, 01:05 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Are you asking this to the U.S. or to Assad? 

So if you were confused if the question applied to Trump or Assad, why are you only discussing Trump's action? Because you knew exactly who Dill's question pertained to so stop the "petty" charade.

[GMDino]

[Dill]

(04-08-2017, 06:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh. OK. They could (you most likely meant "why did they not" or that could just be my alternate impression) follow the UN route, they could also strike without their permission as we have Troops on the ground there and The Leader of that country has shown he has no problem employing chemical weapons. 

We choose option B as being in the best interest of our National Security and most of the civilized world has applauded the choice. 

No one doubts the US has the capacity to strike without UN permission. It is not a matter of "can" but of "ought". Does the US want to signal the world that the most powerful military on earth does what it wants when it wants, or does it want to signal that it respects rule of law, including international law, and premises military action on precedent, diplomacy and consensus rather than the impulse of this or that president? 

Let's say you are correct and that Trump and his NSC determined "option B" as in the interest of our national security.

Do you see a pathway or chain of events leading from a gas attack on Syrian civilians all the way to damage of US interests--lives, property, business, profits, either at home or abroad? Even a potential one?

I am guessing that "civilized" means US allies here. Though it is still not clear that most of the civilized world is applauding, I am pretty sure most would applaud action through the UN as well. France and Germany say the attacks were "understandable." Let's check that international response again in two/three weeks. 

Also if you take international approval/disapproval as a standard for evaluating Trump's foreign policy, I hope that you will use that standard consistently. Trumpsters say it doesn't matter what "they" think when it comes to US foreign policy. (Though you have been a consistent defender of Trump, I don't consider you a Trumpster (a true believer who voted for the guy) .)

Perhaps we share some common ground, here, as I do think international approval is one standard for evaluating US foreign policy. 

[*bfine32*]

(04-08-2017, 06:40 PM)Dill Wrote: No one doubts the US has the capacity to strike without UN permission. It is not a matter of "can" but of "ought". Does the US want to signal the world that the most powerful military on earth does what it wants when it wants, or does it want to signal that it respects rule of law, including international law, and premises military action on precedent, diplomacy and consensus rather than the impulse of this or that president? 

Let's say you are correct and that Trump and his NSC determined "option B" as in the interest of our national security.

Do you see a pathway or chain of events leading from a gas attack on Syrian civilians all the way to damage of US interests--lives, property, business, profits, either at home or abroad? Even a potential one?

I am guessing that "civilized" means US allies here. Though it is still not clear that most of the civilized world is applauding, I am pretty sure most would applaud action through the UN as well. France and Germany say the attacks were "understandable." Let's check that international response again in two/three weeks. 

Also if you take international approval/disapproval as a standard for evaluating Trump's foreign policy, I hope that you will use that standard consistently. Trumpsters say it doesn't matter what "they" think when it comes to US foreign policy. (Though you have been a consistent defender of Trump, I don't consider you a Trumpster (a true believer who voted for the guy) .)

Perhaps we share some common ground, here, as I do think international approval is one standard for evaluating US foreign policy. 

Sure I could see a chain of events that could lead to him using chemical weapons on US interests. We have Troops over there in a supporting role trying to fight ISIS. Assad had no regard for his citizens when he wanted to bomb his rebels. What makes you think he would have regard for our Troops if we didn't answer quickly and decisively? 

We should make our foreign policy decisions based on the best interest of out Nation. It's just icing on the cake when the rest of the world (except Russia, Iran, and members of PnR) applaud it. 

[GMDino]

(04-08-2017, 09:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure I could see a chain of events that could lead to him using chemical weapons on US interests. We have Troops over there in a supporting role trying to fight ISIS. Assad had no regard for his citizens when he wanted to bomb his rebels. What makes you think he would have regard for our Troops if we didn't answer quickly and decisively? 

We should make our foreign policy decisions based on the best interest of out Nation. It's just icing on the cake when the rest of the world (except Russia, Iran, and members of PnR) applaud it. 

How big of broom does one need to make such a giant, sweeping, generalization?

Asking for a friend.

If Assad has a death wish he'll attack US troops. In the mean time he'll just attack his own people whom he is in a civil war with.

[Dill]

(04-08-2017, 09:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure I could see a chain of events that could lead to him using chemical weapons on US interests. We have Troops over there in a supporting role trying to fight ISIS. Assad had no regard for his citizens when he wanted to bomb his rebels. What makes you think he would have regard for our Troops if we didn't answer quickly and decisively? 

We should make our foreign policy decisions based on the best interest of out Nation. It's just icing on the cake when the rest of the world (except Russia, Iran, and members of PnR) applaud it. 

Assad's citizens are defenseless. The US has the most powerful military in the world and is readier than most countries to use it. This makes me think he would have extreme regard for our troops.

When you have your hands full attacking your own people during a civil war, it's a long slide to attacking another country's military and inviting blowback--and really downright stupid if they are killing your enemies for you. 

I cannot see the chain of events you suggest before Trump struck the Syrian airbase.  But I can see that the strike may have increased the likelihood that Assad would strike US troops now. Do you acknowledge that?

So if the rest of the world except a lot of countries (Brazil, China, India, Germany, France, Italy) applaud the strikes, and you call that "icing," does that mean such approval is of no real importance? Are you hedging your bets on Trump's next moves?

ISIS is also cheering Trump's strikes--such extra icing makes for a tasty cake indeed.

[Dill]

(04-08-2017, 09:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: We should make our foreign policy decisions based on the best interest of out Nation. It's just icing on the cake when the rest of the world (except Russia, Iran, and members of PnR) applaud it. 

Two days before the attack, Tillerson broke precedent with Obama and Bush, stating that Assad's fate was up to the Syrian people. After keeping it out of sight since 2013, Assad promptly brought the gas out.  Perhaps Trump did not know what the statement signaled?

But then we are told Trump was "moved" by the sight of dying toddlers. Soon after he strikes Syria. Is it clear the strike was not an emotional response, and of the sort which would of course be condemned in a female head of state?  I don't know if emotion was clearly the motivation. Trump was unmoved when HUNDREDS of children were gassed in 2013, and he urged "foolish" Obama not to respond, stay out of Syria, put America first.

We are, after all, referring to the man who has demonized Syrian refugees, seeking to ban their entry into the US.
Trump even told his cruelly cheering Trumpsters that he could look Syrian children in the face and tell them "No, you can't come here."  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47t4AHd2aPg
 So it's not clear at all why he suddenly reversed his hands off Syria policy, whatever the official reasons given.

It is still not clear how this strike was in "the national interest."  Has Trump defined the national interest in foreign policy goals? Something more specific than "America first" or "be decisive"?


On a side note: At least one segment of Trump's base has called the gas attack a hoax. They believe Trump was fooled by the Obama deepstate in to attacking. http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/done-with-trump-donald-trumps-online-base-fumes-about-syria-strikes-1678815   They think Trump has betrayed his promise to put America first.

I never expected authentic Trumpsters to begin criticizing him so soon.  Unless he continues paralyzing government and breaking up foreign policy, their support may be peeling away, just as the support of "independents" is peeling away now.

[*bfine32*]

(04-08-2017, 11:22 PM)Dill Wrote: Assad's citizens are defenseless. The US has the most powerful military in the world and is readier than most countries to use it. This makes me think he would have extreme regard for our troops.

With your first line you just answered your own question of "Why did we do it". He has that regard because he knows what we will do, we just sent him a reminder.
As I said about 10 pages ago: It is amusing to watch the usual suspect try to paint this in a bad light.
Perhaps folks would think you and others were more genuine in their responses if they haven't complained about everything else he has done to date.
I had a Anniversary thing today and I've mentioned that I am the lone conservative in my family. Even my anti-Trump uncle was praising this. Seems the only ones not praising it are extremists from all sides. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-08-2017, 09:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure I could see a chain of events that could lead to him using chemical weapons on US interests. We have Troops over there in a supporting role trying to fight ISIS. Assad had no regard for his citizens when he wanted to bomb his rebels. What makes you think he would have regard for our Troops if we didn't answer quickly and decisively? 

We should make our foreign policy decisions based on the best interest of out Nation. It's just icing on the cake when the rest of the world (except Russia, Iran, and members of PnR) applaud it. 

Who wrote soldiers volunteer to be targets? You did, remember? Attacking Assad increases the chance Assad will attack our soldiers. Especially with Russia and Iran backing him.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-08-2017, 09:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: We should make our foreign policy decisions based on the best interest of out Nation. 

(04-08-2017, 11:22 PM)Dill Wrote: Assad's citizens are defenseless.

(04-09-2017, 12:00 AM)bfine32 Wrote: With your first line you just answered your own question of "Why did we do it". 

Wait.  I thought you said we should make foreign policy decisions based upon the best interest of our Nation?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-09-2017, 12:00 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I am the lone conservative in my family.

Enough with the fake modesty.  You're the lone conservative. Period.

(11-23-2016, 03:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: While I was thinking about how liberal this forum is, it dawned on me that I am often the lone conservative voice of reason in a Politically Correct world gone mad. 

[*bfine32*]

(04-09-2017, 12:22 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Who wrote soldiers volunteer to be targets?  You did, remember?  Attacking Assad increases the chance Assad will attack our soldiers. Especially with Russia and Iran backing him.

I do not remember saying any such thing. I did say Soldiers volunteer to be combatants. A Soldier understads there is a huge difference. Your opion of it increasing Assad's liklihood of attack is nothing more than that. 

(04-09-2017, 12:39 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Wait.  I thought you said we should make foreign policy decisions based upon the best interest of our Nation?

You must have missed my point. I told dude he answered his own question when he said Assad respects out Military and will go to his ass if he acts up. While asking why we bombed the airfield without permission.

(04-09-2017, 12:46 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Enough with the fake modesty.  You're the lone conservative. Period.

Oh, there's more. They just steer clear to avoid the lynch mob mentality that will be unleashed or the suspensions that will no doubt follow. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-09-2017, 01:14 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I do not remember saying any such thing. I did say Soldiers volunteer to be combatants. A Soldier understads there is a huge difference. Your opion of it increasing Assad's liklihood of attack is nothing more than that. 

When you're looking down your rifle sights aiming at a combantant, what are they?  A target.  If a soldier wasn't a target there would be no need to IMT.  You did learn to IMT, didn't you? Low crawl?  High crawl?  Three to five second rush?  Or do scouts never get out of their vehicles?


Have you ever walked into a bar and just punched some random dude in the face to decrease the chance he would punch you in the face?  And your opinion is . . . like . . .your opinion, too, dude.

Quote:You must have missed my point. I told dude he answered his own question when he said Assad respects out Military and will go to his ass if he acts up. While asking why we bombed the airfield without permission.

Maybe you missed the point where you said we should base our foreign policy on what's best for the people of our country and then implied we took military action based upon what is best for the people of Syria.

Quote:Oh, there's more. They just steer clear to avoid the lynch mob mentality that will be unleashed or the suspensions that will no doubt follow. 

Glad to know you'll have help carrying that cross of your's.  Maybe y'all can take turns beating the refugees and immigrants back at the border.  Imagine the money we will save on the cost of a wall.