EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 7282
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Deleted User 173346
16169 Posts
| ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
 . Didn't Clinton bomb Yugoslavia to distract from his scandal? | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On April 07 2017 06:01 Sermokala wrote: Not to mention the thousand pound elephant in the region that is isreal. If america is signaling displeasure about chemical weapons isreal already has air strikes lined up. ISIS isn't going anywhere until the kurdish question is solved. Better hope that US-Israel relationship is as cozy as ever for that though. Last I heard the Trump euphoria seems to have dissipated in that part of the world as well. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On April 07 2017 06:05 Doodsmack wrote: A massive air campaign in Syria would certainly take attention away from the Russia investigation . Didn't Clinton bomb Yugoslavia to distract from his scandal?Well everyone cared about the Clinton scandal and no one except Russia cared about Yugoslavia so it sounds like it failed to do the job. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On April 07 2017 06:04 plasmidghost wrote: Kurdistan should be made in their traditional region (Northwestern Syria, I think) in exchange for helping out the US. After the chemical attack, Assad's 99% going to be deposed, just like we did with Saddam it's unlikely assad is going ot be deposed; if we didn't do it after the previous time chemical weapons were used, it's unlikely it will be done this time. Trump may be more gung ho, but getting the support to send in the necessary ground troops to depose him is improbable. If assad leaves, it's more likely to be as part of a negotiated settlement wherein he retires someplace safe after the war is over. | ||
|
Deleted User 173346
16169 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
Republican Sen. Marco Rubio said Wednesday that he doesn't think it's a coincidence that a suspected chemical weapons attack in Syria occurred shortly after Secretary of State Rex Tillerson suggested Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad could remain in power. "In this case now, we have very limited options and look, it's concerning that the secretary of state, 72 hours ago or a week ago, last Friday, said that the future's up to the people in Syria on what happens with Assad. In essence almost nodding to the idea that Assad was gonna get to stay in some capacity," Rubio said on the show "AM Tampa Bay." ... Other lawmakers, such as fellow Republican Sen. John McCain, have also rebuked Tillerson and the Trump administration. McCain said on CNN's "New Day" that he was sure that the Assad regime was "encouraged to know that the United States is withdrawing" from the conflict. CNN | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 173346
16169 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 173346
16169 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
plasmid -> yes, the US can afford ot go to war (from an economic standpoint). it'll hurt economically, depending on the scale of the war and post-war efforts. I can give oyu some vague rough numbers if you want. it might well derail efforts to get an infrastructure bill done though. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On April 07 2017 06:25 plasmidghost wrote: Can the US even afford to go to war? We have so much crumbling infrastructure that Trump proposed to spend a trillion dollars on fixing, if we go to war, there's no way anything near what he proposed will get done It's not too expensive in the moment to bomb-n'-leave, and let others take care of the problems. It will bite you in the ass in the future, but for the moment, you get by fine. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 07 2017 06:25 plasmidghost wrote: Can the US even afford to go to war? We have so much crumbling infrastructure that Trump proposed to spend a trillion dollars on fixing, if we go to war, there's no way anything near what he proposed will get done Of course we can. Can we afford to go to war without raising taxes? No. Are we talking about war right now? Not really. Just a missile strikes. But Congress still needs to approve that. | ||
|
Deleted User 173346
16169 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 07 2017 06:29 zlefin wrote: plansix -> legally, Trump could probably order an attack or two fine without congressional approval (not completely sure on that) plasmid -> yes, the US can afford ot go to war (from an economic standpoint). it'll hurt economically, depending on the scale of the war and post-war efforts. I can give oyu some vague rough numbers if you want. it might well derail efforts to get an infrastructure bill done though. It has been a very long time since congress has authorized any additional military actions. Obama still had to operate under the authorization that allowed us to go to the Iraq war for a lot of the stuff dealing with ISIS. There is no authorization for the military to attack the Syrian Government. That is why Obama had to ask when Assad crossed the Red Line way back when. He can order it and it might happen, but all the experts I have been hearing has been saying any attack on Assad without congressional approval is legal questionable at best. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On April 07 2017 06:34 plasmidghost wrote: We could always stay and stabilize the country before leaving, but I highly doubt that will happen, American history has shown that policy is bomb first, then when an al-Qaeda/ISIS/whatever pops up in that region, bomb it again staying to stabilize vastly increases the costs both in money and lives. it's also very very difficult to make a place stable. | ||
| ||
