Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Civilian deaths from US-led airstrikes hit record high under Donald Trump
But since they weren't chemical weapons, it's okay!
It's almost like this administration is running on pure id and has absolutely no idea how to wield military power effectively.
If only there had been some kind of precedent for that. Like, a war we could point to where insufficient civilian leadership over the military had resulted in disaster.
Say, within the last 15 years.
Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.I have no idea what the Trump administration's overall policy here is, and I suspect that they don't have one, which is terrifying.
Some well placed JDA Ms would have done the job just as well.
Focusing on the minutiae of just how much ordinance was used is a distraction from the central issue.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
X4 Can't think of one, Iraq was the reverse, a total failure of civilian leadership who had no idea how to bring peace and just wanted to blow stuff up, declare a quick victory then go home.
edited 7th Apr '17 6:38:40 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran@ Morning Star 1337: Not in the Freudian sense. As per Freud, ego is the balancing force between the id and the superego (yes, I'm greatly simplifying Freud's theories), and I see no trace of superego influence anywhere in Trump's actions, hence no ego.
Trump does have an ego (in the conventional sense of the word) the size of Jupiter, though.
edited 7th Apr '17 6:39:52 AM by TrashJack
"Cynic, n. — A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be." - The Devil's DictionarySo as someone mentioned a few pages back, rather than blowing the whole thing off, Putin has instead declared that this has furthered weakened US and Russia ties, and while they're keeping channels open, they're not actually going to exchange any information. Again, I still don't think this is going to bring about WWIII, but if this sort of thing keeps happening, then that might just be the tipping point as far as the Ruskies are concerned.
edited 7th Apr '17 7:24:34 AM by kkhohoho
The specific action was beneficial. Let me wave the world's smallest American flag for Trump. If he's shooting without having a plan, then he's still an idiot. Now, if the missile strike was a combination of reprisal and warning targeted specifically toward that purpose, then I can give Trump (or whoever planned this) credit for taking the appropriate response.
Mattis pushed Trump into the strike. He knows that the administration isn't capable of sustaining any kind of plan, but there's nothing wrong with its ability to make big noisy exhibitions. So he arranged for one good missile attack against the Assad airfield with a subtle hint of "Cut the shit, Assad. You can commit genocide all you like, but don't use chemical weapons in doing so." He's counting on the Administration's dysfunction to keep the response from going any farther.
I'm going to be honest: I'm really not sure how I feel about the strike Trump did on Syria. Despite some on the left's completely inexorable opposition to any use of military force abroad, I don't think the airstrikes aren't the right option, at least in a vacuum on face value. My uneasiness comes from Trump having the keys to the Tomahawk missiles. If this was Hillary, I'd completely trust her judgment that she at bare minimum at least thought this through and what the consequences would be, militarily, domestically, and internationally. Would she be immune from making a mistake and me calling her out for it? Not a chance in fucking hell.
Even if this IS the right decision by Trump (and we have no conclusive evidence either way, seeing as how some see this as a smokescreen to fast track the sanctions on the Russian Government being lifted), this is pulling the pin on the grenade and I don't trust Trump to even have the self awareness that he needs to throw it to avoid not only himself being killed by shrapnel, but his fellow men, as well.
Just my .02.
New Survey coming this weekend!Yeah, Iraq was about civilian leadership forcing a war on the military that the military didn't want, and having zero plan for what to do after toppling Saddam.
If Trump ever got fully involved in Syria the result would likely be disturbingly similar, however. I doubt he has the follow through to actually go to war, but we'll see, won't we?
edited 7th Apr '17 7:28:38 AM by TheWanderer
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |Georgia Republicans rally around Syria strikes
U.S. Sen. David Perdue said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was a “tyrant” and that his chemical weapons attacks “will not be tolerated.” Ditto for U.S. Rep. Barry Loudermilk, R-Cassville, who said using such weapons “is an evil and unconscionable act which warrants international response.”
U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson also said he supported Trump’s move, saying it “sends a clear signal to the world that war crimes such as these will not be tolerated.”
Perdue was quick to take a swipe at former President Barack Obama for not taking action sooner.
“After six years of inaction by the Obama Administration, I am glad to see that President Trump is willing to stand up for these innocent victims and stop those responsible for this violence,” he said.
Obama considered and then rejected a similar strike in 2013 after declaring earlier that the use of chemical weapons was a “red line.”
Many Republicans opposed a more forceful intervention in the growing civil war at the time. Isakson had initially backed military action but later said he would vote against a resolution authorizing a U.S. military strike in Syria. Our colleagues took a deep dive into his stance at the time.
In the hours after the news broke last night, Republican Karen Handel took to Twitter to take a hit at Jon Ossoff, the Democratic frontrunner who has been in the spotlight for his national security credentials.
- Nothing but crickets from “National Security Expert” @ossoff thus far. What say you, Jon? Do you stand with Obama or Trump?
- — Karen Handel (@karenhandel) April 7, 2017
- @realDonaldTrump just showed what real leadership looks like and what crossing a “red line” really means
- — Karen Handel (@karenhandel) April 7, 2017
This morning, Ossoff’s response hit our inboxes. He said if intelligence sources confirm that Assad indeed used chemical weapons against civilians, “a swift punitive strike on Syrian military targets is reasonable.”
“The more than fifty cruise missiles reportedly launched suggests a significant strike, and any further action should require Congressional approval,” Ossoff said. “Other than the deployment of U.S. Special Operations Forces to support coalition operations against ISIS, I urge the Administration to avoid getting drawn into an intractable ground war that cannot be resolved by U.S. military force.”
edited 7th Apr '17 7:37:33 AM by CenturyEye
Look with century eyes... With our backs to the arch And the wreck of our kind We will stare straight ahead For the rest of our lives
x4
Not as far as the Russians are concerned, which is what worries me. But if this really is just a smokescreen to lift Russian sanctions under the guise of improving inter-country relationships, then as much as I hate to say it, there might not be much choice but to go along with it.
edited 7th Apr '17 7:32:29 AM by kkhohoho
Though, I think the Russians could benefit from this in the long run if they play it right.
If Trump & Co. succeeds in causing Assad to suffer an unfortunate cessation of existence and calls it a day after that, it leaves it to Russia to install a much more malleable puppet and solidify their position in the Middle East while giving Russia's propaganda arm an enormous amount of leverage in shifting the whole spectre of "If we don't like you we'll invade you" they've accrued over the years onto the United States. Instead of rumors and conspiracy theories they'd have an actual body of a world leader to parade about, even if it is a dirtbag like Assad.
All depends more on how far Trump is willing to push I suppose.
edited 7th Apr '17 7:43:02 AM by carbon-mantis
Russia has cut communications with the White House.
So even with Trump informing the Russians, they are absolutely pissed off at this move. It's obvious that any threat to Assad's power is a threat to them as well, and anyone saying "Well, maybe, the Russians will let Assad go" was being too optimistic...
"Dmitri S. Peskov, a spokesman for President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, told reporters Friday morning that the strike 'deals a significant blow to relations between Russia and America, which are already in a poor state,' according to the news agency RIA. Mr. Peskov said the strike did nothing to combat international terrorism. 'On the contrary, this creates a serious obstacle for building of an international coalition to fight it and to effectively resist this universal evil,' he said."—NY Times
Not if a state does it. Then it's just regular mass murder.
edited 7th Apr '17 8:18:29 AM by iflewaway
something

This is the guy who campaigned and got elected on a platform with the promise that he'd target the families of terrorists.
I highly doubt Trump gives a shit about dead kids. Especially if they happen to be poor, foreign, and brown.
Disgusted, but not surprised