Here we go again, Syria

[f0xx]

 

 

When Paul Joseph Watson attacks Trump, you know things are rough....

[hotspring monkey]

[f0xx]

 

[English lad]

This is pretty much exactly what Trump needed.  A nice war to stir up nationalism and give him the excuse to shut down the investigations under the guise of national security.

[Imoutgoodbye]

 

[Pali]

20 hours ago, English lad said:

This is pretty much exactly what Trump needed.  A nice war to stir up nationalism and give him the excuse to shut down the investigations under the guise of national security.

US involvement in Syria isn't at anything close to the scale Trump would need for that purpose.  This also wasn't just the US acting - the UK and France joined in the attacks - and Russia received warnings ahead of time (and almost certainly passed them on to Syria) regarding likely targets to minimize collateral damage and the chances of the strikes creating an even larger conflict.  This set of strikes will accomplish about the same that the last set of US strikes on Syria did, or the strikes before that: allow the US to say "we did something about this" without actually doing something meaningful or significantly changing the reality of the Syrian conflict on the ground.  It was a slap on the wrist in response to the use of chemical weapons, and while it will get talked about a fair bit for the next week or so, I'd be shocked if anyone still mentions it in a couple months anymore than we still talk about the US launching a similar attack almost exactly a year ago or the time 300 Russian mercenaries were killed while attacking a US position three months ago.

 

War with Russia would serve the role of a distraction, but nobody's really eager to cause that in the first place (for good reason) and Trump is still hesitant to act strongly against Russian interests.  War with North Korea could also serve, but without NK actually attacking anyone directly it would be hard to justify to an American public that is already tired of US-initiated overseas conflicts - though we should expect Bolton to try anyways.  War with Iran would work, but it would be even more difficult to justify without Iran overstepping, and the Middle East especially is an area most Americans are tired of involvement with.

 

In short, I don't see a major US war coming out of this particular attack, or even Syria in general - we just don't care enough about it.  The media will make noise about it because its something new to talk about that doesn't involve Trump's penis needing to hand out bribes, Youtubers will make dramatic videos to attract views, and diplomats and politicians will posture... but Infinity War will come out in two weeks and we'll move on.

[English lad]

You telling me appointing Bolton as NSA doesnt have starting a war written all over it? I guess Iran would be his wheelhouse.

[f0xx]

3 hours ago, Pali said:

This set of strikes will accomplish about the same that the last set of US strikes on Syria did, or the strikes before that: allow the US to say "we did something about this"

Secretary of "Defense" said they have no real proof that the last chemical attack was carried out by the Syrian Government. In fact, there are many proofs it was actually carried out by the  "moderate" rebels.

With that in mind, the only thing the last strike accomplished was showing the world that the US doesn't need actual proof to attack a souvereign state. 

This one accomplished something different, it showed the world how much of influence the US has over it's puppets allies.

By the way, there are some reports the target they hit was not a chemical site, but a building that served as a Hamas HQ.

 

[Pali]

4 hours ago, English lad said:

You telling me appointing Bolton as NSA doesnt have starting a war written all over it? I guess Iran would be his wheelhouse.

Ahem - "though we should expect Bolton to try anyways".  Granted, I only mentioned him in the context of North Korea, but I agree he's likely to be an issue regarding Iran as well.  As for starting a war, Bolton can be an influence, but he can't be the primary cause: that will be Trump or a Republican Congress.

 

39 minutes ago, f0xx said:

Secretary of "Defense" said they have no real proof that the last chemical attack was carried out by the Syrian Government. In fact, there are many proofs it was actually carried out by the  "moderate" rebels.

With that in mind, the only thing the last strike accomplished was showing the world that the US doesn't need actual proof to attack a souvereign state. 

Without getting into a debate regarding the veracity of the claim that the chemical attack was carried out by the Syrian government - a claim that isn't unique to US agencies or independent reporting - whether the attack was carried out by Assad or not is irrelevant to what I said: that the US, UK, and France are using it as a justification for this attack.  If that justification is generally viewed as valid, which it likely will be regardless of the truth, that will help minimize backlash from this attack.

 

39 minutes ago, f0xx said:

This one accomplished something different, it showed the world how much of influence the US has over it's puppets allies.

France and the UK are not US puppets in any meaningful sense of the word, nor does the Trump administration have strong friends in them.

 

39 minutes ago, f0xx said:

By the way, there are some reports the target they hit was not a chemical site, but a building that served as a Hamas HQ.

There are probably also reports that the target was run by lizard men from Mars.  I'd be very surprised if it was a Hamas HQ building, considering that Hamas's statement regarding the strikes was to condemn attacks against the Syrian government.

[English lad]

Macron needs to appear strong on the international front currently.  And May is just a disaster - who is going to get destroyed over this.

She doesn't have a majority in Parliament, She knows that she wouldn't get a vote on this action through.  The last time Parliament voted on this issue under her predecessor it was voted down, and he lost a lot of face over it.

This is a case of her trying to demonstrate to Parliament that she still has some powers, and is still relevant - which is a pretty shitty reason to drop bombs.

[f0xx]

2 hours ago, Pali said:

I'd be very surprised if it was a Hamas HQ building, considering that Hamas's statement regarding the strikes was to condemn attacks against the Syrian government.

This makes no sense.... Hamas work with Syrian gov. to fight Isis. It's normal to have an HQ in Damascus. HQ gets hit by US/France/UK missiles. Hamas condemns the strikes.

Why would that surprise you?

[f0xx]

2 hours ago, Pali said:

Without getting into a debate regarding the veracity of the claim that the chemical attack was carried out by the Syrian government - a claim that isn't unique to US agencies or independent reporting - whether the attack was carried out by Assad or not is irrelevant to what I said: that the US, UK, and France are using it as a justification for this attack.  If that justification is generally viewed as valid, which it likely will be regardless of the truth, that will help minimize backlash from this attack.

How can you say that mate? Basically, you say truth is irrelevant? And all that matters is "if the justification is view as valid?"

Who is going to decide whether it's valid or not? There is noone to hold the US responsible for it's actions, so the US does whatever it likes, as long as it finds an "excuse", not a "justification". Even if that excuse makes absolutely no sense.

[egreir]

US does what US wants. Who's gonna do something about it? We are the alpha male out on the playground.

[Anume]

That's the attitude that keeps causing serious mess-ups. Living in the world is not a competition.

[f0xx]

13 minutes ago, Anume said:

That's the attitude that keeps causing serious mess-ups. Living in the world is not a competition.

It's true though. It's a jungle out there and the strongest does whatever he wants.

The US acts like it wants to spread democracy, but the reality is the the world order is a dictatorship, and the US is the dictator. Those who suck up to the dictator do well, and those who do not suffer.

Human rights are just an excuse the dictator uses to destroy its political opponents. There are no values, only interests. How else could one explain the doube standards? 

And this is no secret. This is what US' foreign policy is based on.

 

 

 

 

[egreir]

That's what everyone keeps saying, until its their country needing the US to bail them out.

[Fool_Hardy]

I support my country.

I support the armed forces that serve to protect it and our allies.

I understand NIMBY (not in my back yard).

I understand the do not show weakness resolve, and the need to flex military muscle when the world begins to doubt it.

I do NOT understand the whole Syria situation. Every time I read about it, I feel someone left out key players or subplots.

The stories always seem like a puzzle missing a lot of pieces.

[Unknown Criminal]

[egreir]

more like rothschild still PO'd he doesnt control the banks there yet

[Erelei]

I’m genuinely surprised to say that I’m 100% with Pali in his assessments and charm in this one. 

[f0xx]

1 hour ago, egreir said:

That's what everyone keeps saying, until its their country needing the US to bail them out.

Bail them out from what?

The wars (silent and non silent ones) the US has been dishing out since 9/11 have all been offensive in nature and most, if not all, have been proven to have been started on lies.

Oh and by the way, anyone who believes that Assad woudl gas his own people in such a sitation, should also doubt his own gov. sitting behind 9/11.

[Imoutgoodbye]

What's the point?  Those with the guns, drones, bombs, and nukes will do what they want.  The worst thing about humans is they have BELIEFS and those beliefs are so culturally ingrained, most people can't dismiss them.  Take @Fool_Hardy, for example (no offense, sir).  If you just read down his list, it reads like nationalism.  It's baffling that these "lines" on maps and the values denoted as "money", surface as they are, are enough to convince people their own experiences are the experiences that matter.  

Dispensing with piss poor attitudes that create tribalism and purported "values" systems (financial and cultural) would be an excellent step towards solving the problem rather than trying to create temporal events that supposedly point to some origin that doesn't actually exist.  

 

EDIT:  This announcement has been brought to you by the Panther of the Panopticon.  The problem isn't the problem of the problem that happened; the problem is still the attitudes about the problem.  

[English lad]

Realistically you are right - boots on the ground won't happen from the US - at least not with a major change in public opinion.

That said - how many troops are already there in one capacity or another? I'd be very surprised if whatever Erik Prince is calling Blackwater these days aren't already there as well.

Its a proxy war, fought between Russia and America, using unofficial assets that can be denied when necessary.

[Manual Labour]

@Valek Marxism doesn't work either.

[Imoutgoodbye]

What I presented in my last argument is more complex than Marxism.  Although, I can see how you'd think I'd be suggesting Marxism, I make no suggestions on what to do or where to go.  

EDIT:  I also understand that Marxism doesn't work, in case you were wondering.  Cultural materialism works better, but requires more to get the rest of the way home.  I want to state, again, however, that I am not advocating anything other than going away from a "set" mindset.  

EDIT2:  Also, I'd avoid the use of the word "either" in an argument as it sets up the "either/or" dichotomy, which we all know is a false dichotomy.  It can also be misconstrued as attempting to set up the OP's argument as a straw man.