Global Events & Politics Überthread

We are going to pretend now that London hasn't gotten significantly more dangerous in the last 10 years? For real?
 
Hawk said:
Syria gonna get lit up
Click to expand...

I’m no conspiracist but what sense does it make for Assad to do that right after trump
Talks about pulling out of Syria? Assad could just wait it out.


Unless he thinks America is such pussies they won’t respond (which obama was and proved)
 
Krgrecw said:
I’m no conspiracist but what sense does it make for Assad to do that right after trump
Talks about pulling out of Syria? Assad could just wait it out.


Unless he thinks America is such pussies they won’t respond (which obama was and proved)
Click to expand...

Not in such a way as to endanger his regime or compromise his ability to mop up resistance. If you've been paying attention, you'd notice that they've been using chemical munitions regularly since the last "punitive" strike. This last attack just had a higher body count. I don't really understand the "what sense does it make" argument that's being put forth here. It's how Assad has prosecuted the war from the jump, and he has had at least implicit support from Russia in doing so.
 
Julio3000 said:
Not in such a way as to endanger his regime or compromise his ability to mop up resistance. If you've been paying attention, you'd notice that they've been using chemical munitions regularly since the last "punitive" strike. This last attack just had a higher body count. I don't really understand the "what sense does it make" argument that's being put forth here. It's how Assad has prosecuted the war from the jump, and he has had at least implicit support from Russia in doing so.
Click to expand...

* had a higher civilian body count
* was in a suburb of Damascus (rapid media response)

I'm hesitant to pawn the attack off as being just a natural component of Assad's modus operandi.

A hallmark of his particularly brutal suppression tactics, sure ... but a very overt (intentional?) one.

By comparison, at least.

The question is, if Assad is in the bag with Russia (who are, by all reports, taking a major economic hit by being in Syria to begin with), why would either party provoke sustained American retaliation/recourse - potentially outright war - on the eve of victory?
 
Last edited:
Hawk said:
* had a higher civilian body count
* was in a suburb of Damascus (rapid media response)

I'm hesitant to pawn the attack off as being just a natural component of Assad's modus operandi.

A hallmark of his particularly brutal suppression tactics, sure ... but a very overt (intentional?) one.

By comparison, at least.

The question is, if Assad is in the bag with Russia (who are, by all reports, taking a major economic hit by being in Syria to begin with), why would either party provoke sustained American retaliation/recourse - potentially outright war - on the eve of victory?
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying, and I make the caveat that we're talking about likelihoods, even if strong ones, not certainties here.

On the other hand, you could just cut and paste the same argument to the sarin attack last year. It made just as much/little sense prima facie then . . . and yet, it happened. That argument also seems a tad sheltered from the reality of the way the war has been prosecuted.
 
Julio3000 said:
I get what you're saying, and I make the caveat that we're talking about likelihoods, even if strong ones, not certainties here.

On the other hand, you could just cut and paste the same argument to the sarin attack last year. It made just as much/little sense prima facie then . . . and yet, it happened. That argument also seems a tad sheltered from the reality of the way the war has been prosecuted.
Click to expand...

The reality I see is that the Syrian conflict is much more theatrics than it is war at this point.

Too many hands in the cookie jar.
 
... let the bombing commence.

All things considered, this is a relatively subdued response, which might just portend well for the Bolton era.
 
I know that sweet Gulf money is flowing, but I don't think May and Macron would be on board if the plan were kicking various of the hornets' nests.
 
So when is the US going to commit to not using chemical weapons on its own citizens. You know, the ones that are considered a war crime if used in combat but used on peaceful protesters just asking police to stop raping and pillaging their communities. What country is going to bomb our police stations to prevent their chemical weapons attack on us?
 
So dissapointed. I get that some type of action needed to be taken but there better have been substantial proof that assad was responsible for the chemical weapons.

What's the difference between anyone in Washington anymore?
 
In a "world event" of comic relief: A boxer wearing 'America 1st' shorts with a brick wall motif was beaten down by a Mexican boxer nicknamed "El Bandido".

5ad111a41f00002d0016d1b6.jpeg
 
Hawk said:
The question is, if Assad is in the bag with Russia (who are, by all reports, taking a major economic hit by being in Syria to begin with), why would either party provoke sustained American retaliation/recourse - potentially outright war - on the eve of victory?
Click to expand...

Especially when an potentially very destructive American retaliation is mounted so easily? Just drop a few bombs.
 
Donald Trump during the campaign:

"You’re going to end up in World War III over Syria if we listen to Hillary Clinton.”
 
The significance of this ?


The Associated Press
‏Verified account @AP

BREAKING: French defense minister says Russia was warned ahead of joint US, UK, French military attacks on Syria.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top