IMO, Syria is a lose/lose and everyone knows that so... this was an easy, low risk mark for the new sheriff to tell the Russians he isn't like the old sheriff without committing to anything bigger than a punch on the nose.
And with that - I shall exit stage left before the lock.
Today Russia announced they are working with Assad to beef up Syrian air defences. Also pulling out of strategic relationship to prevent mid-air collisions with US over Syria.
So yeah, it's going to be an escalation. How far that goes depends on many many factors.
In reply to NOHOME:
You know, I hadn't considered that. Good point, especially with what Streetwiseguy said.
Huckleberry wrote: Can someone please explain the distinction and outrage over the means of destruction? So... it's fine if you blow civilians to bits with conventional explosives. We can tolerate that. That only kills, blinds, deafens, burns or dismembers them. Fine. That's fair. Rock on with your bad self. But, bitch, you berkeley with their central nervous systems or burn them with something other than fire? Oh, man. You sir have crossed a line! WE must do something! Does it not seem like an arbitrary line in the sand? The victims are still dead or ruined either way.
This.
Partly related: I saw a story on CBS Sunday Morning about using falcons to keep the starlings out of vineyards in California. The falcons just scare away the birds and they said at the end that 'no starlings were harmed during the filming'. But they just skipped over the feeder quail the handler gave the falcon.
Eating tuna = fine. Eating a dolphin = hippies E36 M3ting bricks.
Very disappointed in this nonsense.
I have also always been confused by the "killing them this way is bad" part. Killing civilians is always considered bad. Killing a soldier with nerve gas is bad, shooting them with a shotgun is bad, burning them with napalm is bad, but stabbing someone in the belly with a bayonet and letting them slowly die is A OK ?!?!?
I just realized that Trump was probably playing a round of golf with Xi (Chinese President) when the final “Go” decision was made.
Setting all of the good decision / bad decision stuff aside for a moment, just imagine what that was like…ring, ring, “excuse me for a moment Xi I’ve got to take this…what’s that, you’re ready to go, alright then, launch the 60 Tomahawks and Berk up Assad’s Airforce”.
The situation in Syria is complex. If anyone can solve it it's a millionaire reality show host that lost money running a casino.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ wrote:Nick (Bo) Comstock wrote: In reply to WilD: I think it would be a good band name though...I'm in- 59 Tomahawks, the GRM punk band. Our first album will be called "Flounder"
59 Tomahawks also has to cover 99 luftballons
In reply to johndej:
I’m working on the lyrics for “Two Amy’s and a Cup” right now…it’s going to be hit.
59 Tomahawks in concert with... The E36 M3boxes, The berkeleying berkeleyers and Bob Costas party this Friday night!
Jerry wrote: The situation in Syria is complex. If anyone can solve it it's a millionaire reality show host that lost money running a casino.
Thank you for posting a great example of how it only takes one a-hole to close a thread because of a needless political attack.
(your quote could easily be applied to almost anyone else who has run or held the office if slanted in the correct direction as you have)
I just want to say that I'm glad this thread hasn't been locked down. We're all adults and I appreciate all of your viewpoints. I actually absorb learn and grow more from different viewpoints in places like this than hearing the extremes of the spectrums with the loudest mouths scream at each other.
Huckleberry wrote: Can someone please explain the distinction and outrage over the means of destruction? So... it's fine if you blow civilians to bits with conventional explosives. We can tolerate that. That only kills, blinds, deafens, burns or dismembers them. Fine. That's fair. Rock on with your bad self. But, bitch, you berkeley with their central nervous systems or burn them with something other than fire? Oh, man. You sir have crossed a line! WE must do something! Does it not seem like an arbitrary line in the sand? The victims are still dead or ruined either way.
Other than that these seem to have been aimed at civilians, there are a couple particularly nasty things about chemical weapons.
A lot of them stick around for a long time - I've heard there are still a couple places pockets of poison gas from World War I are still turning up in Europe. True, there's sometimes a few bombs that failed to explode turning up, but they weren't supposed to stick around.
Once you let your poison gas out, it tends to drift off in whichever way it pleases. You have a fairly good idea of how big an explosion a bomb is going to make; what other targets get damaged by chemical weapons is the luck of the draw. Making them more likely to hurt non-combatants.
If you do bomb civilians, you can at least claim, "Oops, we sent the bomb to the wrong address" and be at least semi-believable. "Oops, we dropped the wrong sort of bomb - we totally meant for that to be a high explosive" is a lot less plausible.
So, that's my take on it - they're more indiscriminate, and that makes them a bigger problem.
Huckleberry wrote: IMO, Syria is a lose/lose and everyone knows that so... this was an easy, low risk mark for the new sheriff to tell the Russians he isn't like the old sheriff without committing to anything bigger than a punch on the nose. And with that - I shall exit stage left before the lock.
Agreed. It seems to be a case of doing something roughly proportionate (go after Syria's ability to launch more chemical weapon strikes) without any real commitment of further action.
MadScientistMatt wrote:Huckleberry wrote: Can someone please explain the distinction and outrage over the means of destruction? So... it's fine if you blow civilians to bits with conventional explosives. We can tolerate that. That only kills, blinds, deafens, burns or dismembers them. Fine. That's fair. Rock on with your bad self. But, bitch, you berkeley with their central nervous systems or burn them with something other than fire? Oh, man. You sir have crossed a line! WE must do something! Does it not seem like an arbitrary line in the sand? The victims are still dead or ruined either way.Other than that these seem to have been aimed at civilians, there are a couple particularly nasty things about chemical weapons. 1. A lot of them stick around for a long time - I've heard there are still a couple places pockets of poison gas from World War I are still turning up in Europe. True, there's sometimes a few bombs that failed to explode turning up, but they weren't supposed to stick around. 2. Once you let your poison gas out, it tends to drift off in whichever way it pleases. You have a fairly good idea of how big an explosion a bomb is going to make; what other targets get damaged by chemical weapons is the luck of the draw. Making them more likely to hurt non-combatants. 3. If you do bomb civilians, you can at least claim, "Oops, we sent the bomb to the wrong address" and be at least semi-believable. "Oops, we dropped the wrong sort of bomb - we totally meant for that to be a high explosive" is a lot less plausible. So, that's my take on it - they're more indiscriminate, and that makes them a bigger problem.Huckleberry wrote: IMO, Syria is a lose/lose and everyone knows that so... this was an easy, low risk mark for the new sheriff to tell the Russians he isn't like the old sheriff without committing to anything bigger than a punch on the nose. And with that - I shall exit stage left before the lock.Agreed. It seems to be a case of doing something roughly proportionate (go after Syria's ability to launch more chemical weapon strikes) without any real commitment of further action.
The term Weapons of Mass Destruction has become a trite term, but chemical weapons are considered one. They are largely uncontrollable once unleashed, they are indiscriminate, they can potentially kill thousands if not millions in one attack, and they can have wide ranging lasting effects. Nuclear weapons are another example. Chemical weapons are just the poor country's nuclear weapon. Yeah, it would be great if all military weapons were outlawed by everybody and everybody adhered to that, but that isn't going to happen, just like Pepsi ain't gonna teach the world to sing in perfect harmony. That's why WMDs are a "red line." Indiscriminately targeting civilians with conventional weapons is also a war crime, but a lot harder to enforce--think "collateral damage."
Politically, you can get just about everybody to agree on punishing a country that uses or threatens to use WMD, but just think what it would take to get everyone onboard to invade a country that is killing its own citizens with conventional weapons.
crankwalk wrote: I just want to say that I'm glad this thread hasn't been locked down. We're all adults and I appreciate all of your viewpoints. I actually absorb learn and grow more from different viewpoints in places like this than hearing the extremes of the spectrums with the loudest mouths scream at each other.
Read my posts above. I've felt that way, regarding "US = World Police" for quite some time. Never had it been broken down as eloquently as NOHOME did.
Huckleberry wrote: IMO, Syria is a lose/lose and everyone knows that so... this was an easy, low risk mark for the new sheriff to tell the Russians he isn't like the old sheriff without committing to anything bigger than a punch on the nose. And with that - I shall exit stage left before the lock.
Agree with much of the sentiment, however I'd hardly call it 'low risk.' One bully walks up to another and punches him on the nose, there's a pretty good chance he's gonna hit back.
I think a dick swinging contest of epic proportions is about to ensue. What comes of it is anyone's guess.
aircooled wrote:Jerry wrote: The situation in Syria is complex. If anyone can solve it it's a millionaire reality show host that lost money running a casino.Thank you for posting a great example of how it only takes one a-hole to close a thread because of a needless political joke. (your quote could easily be applied to almost anyone else who has run or held the office if slanted in the correct direction as you have)
Fixed that for you. Have a Snickers, it's not that big of a deal.
I recently watched this-- which was flawed, but pretty eye opening:
I suppose we should be glad that we actually heard about this attack. This isn't always the case.
crankwalk wrote: I just want to say that I'm glad this thread hasn't been locked down. We're all adults and I appreciate all of your viewpoints. I actually absorb learn and grow more from different viewpoints in places like this than hearing the extremes of the spectrums with the loudest mouths scream at each other.
This, in my opinion, is what makes this place so special. Obviously, we all have tons of varying backgrounds and viewpoints, but discussions like this about very difficult and divisive topics are almost always civil and enlightening around here. Hearing both sides of a debate intelligently and eloquently discussed often helps me to hash out my own feelings on these topics. So, basically, thanks for not being shiny happy people!
crankwalk wrote: I just want to say that I'm glad this thread hasn't been locked down.
Hold my beer..... 
Jerry wrote:aircooled wrote:Fixed that for you. Have a Snickers, it's not that big of a deal.Jerry wrote: The situation in Syria is complex. If anyone can solve it it's a millionaire reality show host that lost money running a casino.Thank you for posting a great example of how it only takes one a-hole to close a thread because of a needless political joke. (your quote could easily be applied to almost anyone else who has run or held the office if slanted in the correct direction as you have)
Hey, I like jokes, but posts like that (which can easily perceived as attacks) are exactly what turn these threads down the wrong path.
Just caught this at the end of a good article: "When you want to do nothing, but look like you are doing something, send a Tomahawk—or 59."
They should have sent one for each of the dead. You do this this is the response. Simple as that.
People that support terrorism would not have the support of those around them if we did this.
Also how did we somehow not target the 6 airfields that would knock them out of the sky and make it a much safer place for the Russians and US to be as we would know who is up there. Cause it would not be them.
You'll need to log in to post.
