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
Hint: Only once. You wanna press THAT button?
Limited, targeted intervention has accomplished its goals in the past and can do so now — if it's done properly, with a clear, reasonable goal in mind. I'm not sure that the Trump administration has that last part down (which is important), but suggesting that anything short of nuking them cannot possibly accomplish anything is ridiculous.
edited 7th Apr '17 9:42:37 AM by NativeJovian
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.So far everything bad which happened in 2017 was the consequence of decisions made in 2016...while the decisions made in 2017 were actually pretty positive so far with Europe pushing back around the far right and a lot of protests actually succeeding.
Anyway, the whole thing with Syria is really convenient for Trump isn't it? No better distraction than some sort of war.
I never said that bombing has no effect on warfare. I simply said it does not deter people like Assad, as even the UN Operations like "Deliberate Force" did not deter the VRS at large. Assad is not someone you can just bully into compliance.
And even Deliberate Force, a high precision multilateral operation done even with knowledge of all actors and the U.N, cost as many civilian lives as it did enemy forces.
We all agree that Trump is an idiot, his bombing was disorganized and full of holes. You can logistically call it a disaster, but praising for his strategy is also wrong. The idea of bombing Assad at this point, in this situation, with all that's been said and done, will not deter his use of chemicals and general civilian oppress related activities.
edited 7th Apr '17 10:10:24 AM by Aszur
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
x7 Strategic bombing has never, ever worked as an effective overall strategy. Even the atomic bombings were coupled with the Soviet invasion of Manchuria where they rolled over the Japanese defenders.
It didn't break the Brits in 1915, nor in 1940. It didn't break the Germans in 1944. Rolling Thunder did nothing to deter the North Vietnamese. Even the Bosnian campaign was in coordination with ground forces in the region - same with the Gulf War.
This is the mistake planners keep making - we keep assuming that if we just bomb people enough they'll eventually just up and surrender.
Reluctant as I am to say it, the only way to make any kind of change in Syria is to look realistically at the political outcomes, the factions that might be sympathetic to the US ('though there are probably a few EU countries that are going to march in lockstep with America again', he said, trying to stare holes in his Prime Minister's back) and work to build them into a stabilizing force. Which means boots on the ground.
edited 7th Apr '17 10:15:40 AM by math792d
Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.No no, you see. THESE bombs will work because they are 'MERICAN bombs. They don't cause civilian casualties, destruction of infraestructure, cause resentment on the populace or lower any chance of living people in the region have. These here 'MERICAN bombs only give FREEDOM and whoever tells you otherwise is a damn dirty commie who votes for that SAD loser Crooked Hillary!
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesI am getting the assessments of the missile strikes not doing a lot of damage, Russian media is full of shit as usual, but the damage reports from US sources and OSINT are pretty much stating that most of the targeted areas only had unserviceable aircraft like the Mi G-17s and Mi G-21s and a few other fuel/ammo depots and hangars that may or may not have anything inside.
Anyway, the reports are pretty much stating that while impressive, the attack didn't deal much of a damage on Assad's military. Probably because the early warning the Trump administration gave to the Russians and they certainly relaying that warning to Assad.
So, not only Trump made himself look like a complete stupid hypocrite, his sudden decision pissed off the Kremlin and didn't achieve any tangible military achievements.
![]()
WWII strategic bombings weren't so much as to break the Germans into surrender but more as a campaign to reduce their military and logistics capabilities from being fully capable of reaching the frontlines. It arguably worked in function that the quality of production decreases, fuel delivery suffered and a lot of resources had to be diverted in order to defend the industrial areas from bombing raids. Though initially just targeting tank and aircraft factories wasn't working as intended but once the USAAF and RAF switched to steel mills and works, fuel refineries and baseline industries then the results became more clear.
I'd say that strategic bombing works if you have a strategy to make it work, as in you have a plan to explore the strategic and tactical openings the strategic bombings offer. Bombing and keep bombing hoping the other side just gives up usually doesn't work, bombing and then launching an operation to exploit the damage done by the bombing usually works.
edited 7th Apr '17 10:26:32 AM by AngelusNox
Inter arma enim silent legesI wonder whether this will catch on.
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiotSomeone beat me to this news but more detail...Senate confirms Neil Gorsuch to the supreme court after historic rules change
n a statement on Friday, Trump hailed Gorsuch’s “historic confirmation”, the first supreme court appointment of his presidency, and said he was the “perfect choice” to serve on the country’s highest court because of his “his judicial temperament, exceptional intellect, unparalleled integrity, and record of independence”.
“As a deep believer in the rule of law, Judge Gorsuch will serve the American people with distinction as he continues to faithfully and vigorously defend our constitution,” Trump said.
In the final tally, three Democrats joined Republicans to confirm Gorsuch: Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Joe Donnelly of Indiana. One senator, Republican Johnny Isakson of Georgia, did not vote.
At just 49, the staunch conservative could have a long tenure, though his confirmation restores the ideological tilt of the court, which is often narrowly divided five to four on major decisions.
From the bench, Scalia elevated the judicial theory of originalism, to which Gorsuch adheres.
In his most high-profile decision, Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc v Sebelius, Gorsuch argued that the owners of the multibillion-dollar craft store did not need to comply with a provision of Barack Obama’s healthcare law requiring employers to offer birth control to female employees because it violated their religious beliefs. The decision was upheld, five to four, by the supreme court.
I'm not so sure that this is a "loss" for Trump - after all, he was able to enact a retaliatory strike against Assad over the use of chemical weapons with (apparently) very few lives lost, which kind of contradicts the RT propaganda I saw claiming that the strike gave "inadvertent" cover to an ISIS offensive near Palmyra. However, the reason Obama never did it is precisely what we have to wait and watch for - the international response.
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"I somehow doubt that the EU countries will be pleased. From an European pov the US is largely responsible for the refugee crisis, since it destabilized the Middle East by launching an unlawful attack on Iraq. They then kept intervening in various countries with not one positive result. The congress kept Obama from acting at the very beginning of the Syria conflict, when there was still a chance to at least set some rules for this conflict. And now Trump is suddenly putting oil into the fire by launching such an ill planed response (not to mention the woman and children he already killed himself)?
Honestly, I will go to the streets if I must to ensure that Germany keeps itself as far out of this mess as possible. We will need all our strength to deal with the fall-out.
edited 7th Apr '17 12:26:25 PM by Swanpride
Apparently the missile strikes hardly did any damage.
The runway is still functional and everything else can be repaired in weeks.
https://mobile.twitter.com/CT_operative/status/850409170792845314
I believe it did destroy 20 Syrian planes though.

edited 7th Apr '17 9:32:42 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised