Global Events & Politics Überthread

57Brave said:
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.
Click to expand...

We don't want to inadvertently start a shooting war with another nuclear power.
 
thethe said:
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?
Click to expand...

Nothing at all. But we can't vote for unicorns!
 
nsacpi said:
a lot of teeth gnashing over what seems a rather restrained response by France, UK, and US.
Click to expand...

Happy about the coordination with our traditional allies. I'm just not sure what we accomplished. Trump needs to clarify what we actually accomplished.
 
thethe said:
Happy about the coordination with our traditional allies. I'm just not sure what we accomplished. Trump needs to clarify what we actually accomplished.
Click to expand...

a lot of it is just symbolic...and I'm ok with that...Syria is a quagmire and I think we should limit our involvement
 
thethe said:
Happy about the coordination with our traditional allies. I'm just not sure what we accomplished. Trump needs to clarify what we actually accomplished.
Click to expand...

We gave the military some practice, but I agree, the one off bombings are a waste. The world knows Trump only did this now because he's backed into a corner with growing scandals.

No sentence should begin with "Trump needs to clarify....".
 
Runnin said:
We gave the military some practice, but I agree, the one off bombings are a waste. The world knows Trump only did this now because he's backed into a corner with growing scandals.

No sentence should begin with "Trump needs to clarify....".
Click to expand...

I can't believe you think this is serious. That's sad
 
Runnin said:
We gave the military some practice, but I agree, the one off bombings are a waste. The world knows Trump only did this now because he's backed into a corner with growing scandals.

No sentence should begin with "Trump needs to clarify....".
Click to expand...


Trump only did this because obama was a pussy and obama let Syria get away with it last time.
 
I didn’t like Obama’s approach to Syria - but I’m not sure Trump’s is any better, yet. The whole thing screams mission creep, which is kind of ironic given the reason we don’t already have significant BOG is primarily because of residual fears from Iraq. There is no plan that doesn’t start with Assad. You either depose him or accept him. Destroying a few caches of chemical weapons is just more theater.

I’ve long pined for a solution that involves Putin throwing Assad under the bus in exchange for concessions from the Western allies. Although, given the current political climate, I don’t know what those concessions would look like anymore.
 
Hawk said:
I didn’t like Obama’s approach to Syria - but I’m not sure Trump’s is any better, yet. The whole thing screams mission creep, which is kind of ironic given the reason we don’t already have significant BOG is primarily because of residual fears from Iraq. There is no plan that doesn’t start with Assad. You either depose him or accept him. Destroying a few caches of chemical weapons is just more theater.

I’ve long pined for a solution that involves Putin throwing Assad under the bus in exchange for concessions from the Western allies. Although, given the current political climate, I don’t know what those concessions would look like anymore.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's about right, IMO. I'm a little more forgiving of Obama's passive approach (wrt to, say, military strikes if not to the political process) than you probably are, but I agree in large part. Tangentially, I think involvement in Libya was a significant miscalculation which poisoned a few wells, to the detriment of the Syria situation.

I think the Iraq hangover does overshadow everything that's happened there, and I'm not altogether sure that's a bad thing. Being in another "you break it, you buy it" situation as the primary guarantor of a post-Assad Syria wouldn't be a happy place.

Yesterday's events have a pretty limited upside, and a significant risk of mission creep and blowback. They don't move the regime and don't take anything off the table except temporary discouraging them from gassing civilians...maybe. Really, if they decided to use CW again, what would we do? Our options short of significant escalation are limited, and escalation is unappetizing. This was, I think, the point of the news coverage suggesting that Mattis was trying to rein in other elements as they planned a response...that the clearest thinkers in proximity to power were pretty lukewarm on a significant military response.

I think the Russians may have overplayed their hand in hoping for a grand bargain. I'd be content to concede that they've "won" in Syria, but it's worth asking exactly what the prize is.
 
Hawk said:
I didn’t like Obama’s approach to Syria - but I’m not sure Trump’s is any better, yet. The whole thing screams mission creep, which is kind of ironic given the reason we don’t already have significant BOG is primarily because of residual fears from Iraq. There is no plan that doesn’t start with Assad. You either depose him or accept him. Destroying a few caches of chemical weapons is just more theater.

I’ve long pined for a solution that involves Putin throwing Assad under the bus in exchange for concessions from the Western allies. Although, given the current political climate, I don’t know what those concessions would look like anymore.
Click to expand...
I think "mission creep" would be a step up in organization and planning. A week or so ago Trump informed us and his aides that he was finished with Syria.
 
Julio3000 said:
Yeah, that's about right, IMO. I'm a little more forgiving of Obama's passive approach (wrt to, say, military strikes if not to the political process) than you probably are, but I agree in large part. Tangentially, I think involvement in Libya was a significant miscalculation which poisoned a few wells, to the detriment of the Syria situation.

I think the Iraq hangover does overshadow everything that's happened there, and I'm not altogether sure that's a bad thing. Being in another "you break it, you buy it" situation as the primary guarantor of a post-Assad Syria wouldn't be a happy place.

Yesterday's events have a pretty limited upside, and a significant risk of mission creep and blowback. They don't move the regime and don't take anything off the table except temporary discouraging them from gassing civilians...maybe. Really, if they decided to use CW again, what would we do? Our options short of significant escalation are limited, and escalation is unappetizing. This was, I think, the point of the news coverage suggesting that Mattis was trying to rein in other elements as they planned a response...that the clearest thinkers in proximity to power were pretty lukewarm on a significant military response.

I think the Russians may have overplayed their hand in hoping for a grand bargain. I'd be content to concede that they've "won" in Syria, but it's worth asking exactly what the prize is.
Click to expand...

if we want to be really cynical about it we can play spoiler and use Syria to bleed the Russians, Iranians and Hezbollah.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top