|
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. |
The President of the United States is the Commander in Chief. It is an awesome responsibility. Committing the use of force and American men and women in uniform is about as serious as it gets. But the truly great presidents understand that knowing when NOT to act is as important as knowing when to act.
It is a whole lot easier starting wars than finishing them. And there are many historical examples of where a promise of limited engagement quickly metastasized into something much bigger.
There is a tendency to rally around the flag, and a President who takes on a war footing can see a boost of support. It is often transitory. There are arguments to be made that President Assad in Syria has crossed a line that demands U.S. military interference. Whether this should have been a unilateral action is something we all must consider. Whether President Trump has a plan for what comes next must be debated. Whether there is a coherence to this missile strike fitting into a larger foreign policy strategy is a question that should give us all pause.
The role of the press is to ask hard questions. There is ample evidence that this Administration needs to face deep scrutiny. The lies we have heard, the chaos in governance, and the looming questions about ties with Russia - itself a major player in Syria - demand that the press treat this latest action with healthy skepticism. Perhaps it was the right thing to do. Perhaps a strong and wise policy will emerge. But that judgement is still definitely hanging in the balance.
The number of members of the press who have lauded the actions last night as "presidential" is concerning. War must never be considered a public relations operation. It is not a way for an Administration to gain a narrative. It is a step into a dangerous unknown and its full impact is impossible to predict, especially in the immediate wake of the first strike.
https://www.facebook.com/theDanRather/posts/10158474112235716
|
On April 09 2017 03:56 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +The President of the United States is the Commander in Chief. It is an awesome responsibility. Committing the use of force and American men and women in uniform is about as serious as it gets. But the truly great presidents understand that knowing when NOT to act is as important as knowing when to act.
It is a whole lot easier starting wars than finishing them. And there are many historical examples of where a promise of limited engagement quickly metastasized into something much bigger.
There is a tendency to rally around the flag, and a President who takes on a war footing can see a boost of support. It is often transitory. There are arguments to be made that President Assad in Syria has crossed a line that demands U.S. military interference. Whether this should have been a unilateral action is something we all must consider. Whether President Trump has a plan for what comes next must be debated. Whether there is a coherence to this missile strike fitting into a larger foreign policy strategy is a question that should give us all pause.
The role of the press is to ask hard questions. There is ample evidence that this Administration needs to face deep scrutiny. The lies we have heard, the chaos in governance, and the looming questions about ties with Russia - itself a major player in Syria - demand that the press treat this latest action with healthy skepticism. Perhaps it was the right thing to do. Perhaps a strong and wise policy will emerge. But that judgement is still definitely hanging in the balance.
The number of members of the press who have lauded the actions last night as "presidential" is concerning. War must never be considered a public relations operation. It is not a way for an Administration to gain a narrative. It is a step into a dangerous unknown and its full impact is impossible to predict, especially in the immediate wake of the first strike. https://www.facebook.com/theDanRather/posts/10158474112235716
Fake News Network gave him a ringing endorsement for what he did.
|
On April 09 2017 02:51 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2017 02:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2017 02:02 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On April 09 2017 01:56 ChristianS wrote:On April 09 2017 01:45 LegalLord wrote:
This would be an odd time for Russia to withdraw given that they're basically on the cusp of getting everything they wanted in the region and the consensus on Russia in Syria has slowly but surely eroded among the people who have started to get a feel for exactly what kind of "moderate rebels" are being called allies.
I could only see that happening if the US decided that they wanted to fuck up everything in the region and get themselves involved in yet another quagmire with no end. Is that where we're headed? It kind of feels like it. It would be straight out of the Bush playbook to get into a war in a country most people can't find on a map as approval ratings are dropping, with justifications like "but he's killing his own people, he's basically Hitler." On the other hand the fact that it's straight out of Bush's playbook would probably make it super unpopular, and Trump probably knows that, considering all of his Monday morning quarterbacking about Iraq. well apparently Graham wants 5-7k ground troops in Syria. I doubt this administration has an actual plan though. Going to have to talk to Hillary about it, she's had a plan for it for years. She had the same plan Obama had. Make the case to Congress and try and get them to step up. Of course it turns out Congress has a rape fantasy. If you ask them for consent they say no and call you a pussy. If you don't ask they fucking love it.
Jesus christ, that metaphor is perfect.
|
On April 09 2017 03:52 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2017 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2017 03:42 Nyxisto wrote:On April 09 2017 03:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2017 03:36 Nyxisto wrote:
Well he is in office now anyway, no matter what any Democrat thinks, so I'm not sure I follow. I also think most people trust the American administration to be capable of carrying out military strikes, it's not like Trump is planning the operation here Trump was going to plan operations, that's why people thought his control of the military was a threat to humanity? But now they realize that's not how the military works so they are fine with it? Just to be clear, you guys and (democrats) WANT Trump to escalate the conflict in the middle east while his most staunch supporters think him escalating in Syria is a terrible idea. And none of you see the comedy in that? I don't really think anybody believed that Trump was a "threat to humanity" in the literal sense, as in "he is going to push the big red button". People are afraid of Trump making strategically bad decisions, but if you are in favour of intervening in Syria the biggest factor isn't who is president, at least not in any direct operational sense. A decision you would have supported under Clinton isn't bad if Trump executes it. Democrats didn't support it UNTIL Trump was the one in charge of it (unless you count Hillary the Hawk). SO basically everyone was lying and exaggerating when they said Trump couldn't be trusted. They absolutely think he can be trusted to execute international missile strikes on hostile countries. In fact they are suggesting that he isn't going far enough, he needs to use more bombs, destroy more Syrian resources, and risk more American lives. It's bullshit. Is that really true though? Didn't Democrats also criticise Obama publicly when he swayed away from his red line after Assad used chemical weapons the first time? Is not punishing the use of chemical weapons really a mainstream line in the Democratic party?
Well some wanted to strike Syria some didn't. Mostly what they wanted was what many are criticizing Trump for, which is a largely symbolic strike with no real plan for following through.
But we know what the follow-through is, it's a prolonged engagement with troops on the ground in the middle east. Which almost everyone claims to be against, but the MIC supports 100%.
|
Let's say we 100% withdraw from Syria and do nothing at all. What does the US stand to lose from a military perspective? Let's say Russia is able to get really comfy and totally solidify Syria as their version of Israel. What does that mean for the EU and the US?
|
On April 09 2017 03:56 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +The President of the United States is the Commander in Chief. It is an awesome responsibility. Committing the use of force and American men and women in uniform is about as serious as it gets. But the truly great presidents understand that knowing when NOT to act is as important as knowing when to act.
It is a whole lot easier starting wars than finishing them. And there are many historical examples of where a promise of limited engagement quickly metastasized into something much bigger.
There is a tendency to rally around the flag, and a President who takes on a war footing can see a boost of support. It is often transitory. There are arguments to be made that President Assad in Syria has crossed a line that demands U.S. military interference. Whether this should have been a unilateral action is something we all must consider. Whether President Trump has a plan for what comes next must be debated. Whether there is a coherence to this missile strike fitting into a larger foreign policy strategy is a question that should give us all pause.
The role of the press is to ask hard questions. There is ample evidence that this Administration needs to face deep scrutiny. The lies we have heard, the chaos in governance, and the looming questions about ties with Russia - itself a major player in Syria - demand that the press treat this latest action with healthy skepticism. Perhaps it was the right thing to do. Perhaps a strong and wise policy will emerge. But that judgement is still definitely hanging in the balance.
The number of members of the press who have lauded the actions last night as "presidential" is concerning. War must never be considered a public relations operation. It is not a way for an Administration to gain a narrative. It is a step into a dangerous unknown and its full impact is impossible to predict, especially in the immediate wake of the first strike. https://www.facebook.com/theDanRather/posts/10158474112235716
Frum basically said the same thing.
analysis of the strike itself here https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/seven-lessons-from-trumps-syria-strike/522327/?utm_source=atltw
|
On April 09 2017 04:13 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2017 03:56 Nevuk wrote:The President of the United States is the Commander in Chief. It is an awesome responsibility. Committing the use of force and American men and women in uniform is about as serious as it gets. But the truly great presidents understand that knowing when NOT to act is as important as knowing when to act.
It is a whole lot easier starting wars than finishing them. And there are many historical examples of where a promise of limited engagement quickly metastasized into something much bigger.
There is a tendency to rally around the flag, and a President who takes on a war footing can see a boost of support. It is often transitory. There are arguments to be made that President Assad in Syria has crossed a line that demands U.S. military interference. Whether this should have been a unilateral action is something we all must consider. Whether President Trump has a plan for what comes next must be debated. Whether there is a coherence to this missile strike fitting into a larger foreign policy strategy is a question that should give us all pause.
The role of the press is to ask hard questions. There is ample evidence that this Administration needs to face deep scrutiny. The lies we have heard, the chaos in governance, and the looming questions about ties with Russia - itself a major player in Syria - demand that the press treat this latest action with healthy skepticism. Perhaps it was the right thing to do. Perhaps a strong and wise policy will emerge. But that judgement is still definitely hanging in the balance.
The number of members of the press who have lauded the actions last night as "presidential" is concerning. War must never be considered a public relations operation. It is not a way for an Administration to gain a narrative. It is a step into a dangerous unknown and its full impact is impossible to predict, especially in the immediate wake of the first strike. https://www.facebook.com/theDanRather/posts/10158474112235716 Frum basically said the same thing. https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/850383497369931776https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/850385062986231809analysis of the strike itself here https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/seven-lessons-from-trumps-syria-strike/522327/?utm_source=atltw
This does well at touching on one of the most fundamental issues with news reporting: The need to entertain and captivate. It isn't sufficient to give a list of purely accurate facts. There is too large a % of our population that is downright inferior and would not feel compelled to keep up on that. These less-thans need to be entertained and want things like clickbait. These masses are the problem with democracy and are a major source of inefficiency/inefficacy in both societal and technological progress.
|
On April 09 2017 04:13 Mohdoo wrote:
Let's say we 100% withdraw from Syria and do nothing at all. What does the US stand to lose from a military perspective? Let's say Russia is able to get really comfy and totally solidify Syria as their version of Israel. What does that mean for the EU and the US?
militarily? the losses would mostly be the possibilty of various rebel forces in syria taking pieces out of Iraq (as ISIS had).
plus whatever other damage ISIS does.
In terms of geopolitics and prestige, that's more complicated, and I'm not totally clear on it, someone else can probably answre better, but I could come up with something of an answer if noone else puts up one.
|
On April 09 2017 04:27 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2017 04:13 Mohdoo wrote:
Let's say we 100% withdraw from Syria and do nothing at all. What does the US stand to lose from a military perspective? Let's say Russia is able to get really comfy and totally solidify Syria as their version of Israel. What does that mean for the EU and the US? militarily? the losses would mostly be the possibilty of various rebel forces in syria taking pieces out of Iraq (as ISIS had). plus whatever other damage ISIS does. In terms of geopolitics and prestige, that's more complicated, and I'm not totally clear on it, someone else can probably answre better, but I could come up with something of an answer if noone else puts up one.
Isn't there a reason we're not just joining up with Assad to cleanse the area of any form of extremism? Besides "but muh civilians!! etc", and an actual military power dynamics reason. My understanding is that we wanted to weaken Syria because it weakens Russia.
|
Maybe this is all part of the generals' secret "defeat ISIS" plan they had to hand Trump after 30 days that vanished into the aether.
On April 09 2017 03:39 LegalLord wrote:
Mattis plans, Trump gives the seal of approval. It might be notable that Mattis took his place virtually unopposed - an oddity given the fact that despite being a perfectly qualified DefSec, he is a known warhawk. If Democrats cared, perhaps they would have raised a fuss about that.
You have to keep in mind Mattis is one of the people in Trump's admin to benefit from bar-lowering syndrome. Maybe even the greatest beneficiary. When your predecessor is a conspiracy nut who resigns in disgrace, you get bonus points. Mixing him up. But he was still appointed at the same time as Flynn/the education woman where outrage was scare.
Gorsuch is another such example where the bar was set quite low for a lot of people (myself included).
|
On April 09 2017 04:13 Mohdoo wrote:
Let's say we 100% withdraw from Syria and do nothing at all. What does the US stand to lose from a military perspective? Let's say Russia is able to get really comfy and totally solidify Syria as their version of Israel. What does that mean for the EU and the US?
Russia and Iran acquire more clout in the Middle East and partially displace the US-led alliance. More Middle East ventures would now have to go through Russia. A big problem for our interventionists.
Syria is a shitty quagmire, but everyone is watching to see who matters in the region.
|
On April 09 2017 04:36 TheTenthDoc wrote:Maybe this is all part of the generals' secret "defeat ISIS" plan they had to hand Trump after 30 days that vanished into the aether. Show nested quote +On April 09 2017 03:39 LegalLord wrote:
Mattis plans, Trump gives the seal of approval. It might be notable that Mattis took his place virtually unopposed - an oddity given the fact that despite being a perfectly qualified DefSec, he is a known warhawk. If Democrats cared, perhaps they would have raised a fuss about that. You have to keep in mind Mattis is one of the people in Trump's admin to benefit from bar-lowering syndrome. Maybe even the greatest beneficiary. When your predecessor is a conspiracy nut who resigns in disgrace, you get bonus points. Mixing him up. But he was still appointed at the same time as Flynn/the education woman where outrage was scare. Gorsuch is another such example where the bar was set quite low for a lot of people (myself included).
Mattis is not a warhark. He just isn't afraid to stab a motherfucker in the throat when it calls for it. He's as diplomatic as a military legend can be, but he knows how the world works and how the ME in particular operates. He's doing the best with what he has and even though he's in the trump administration, I think his biggest priority is to not put boots on the ground. I would find it hard to have anyone else in the position (that's my USMC bias speaking, obviously. I was never under his command, but he's a legend in all branches).
|
On April 09 2017 04:35 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2017 04:27 zlefin wrote:On April 09 2017 04:13 Mohdoo wrote:
Let's say we 100% withdraw from Syria and do nothing at all. What does the US stand to lose from a military perspective? Let's say Russia is able to get really comfy and totally solidify Syria as their version of Israel. What does that mean for the EU and the US? militarily? the losses would mostly be the possibilty of various rebel forces in syria taking pieces out of Iraq (as ISIS had). plus whatever other damage ISIS does. In terms of geopolitics and prestige, that's more complicated, and I'm not totally clear on it, someone else can probably answre better, but I could come up with something of an answer if noone else puts up one. Isn't there a reason we're not just joining up with Assad to cleanse the area of any form of extremism? Besides "but muh civilians!! etc", and an actual military power dynamics reason. My understanding is that we wanted to weaken Syria because it weakens Russia.
yeah, that's part of the geopolitics rather than military per se; at least from my POV.
syria is a long tim ally of russia, and russia has a naval base in syria. If the syrian regime were kicked out, russia might lose its naval base, and it would have fewer allies in the region to work with. weakening russia is definitely one of the goals; also weakening iran which does some support for the syrian regime.
The civilian issue does matter some of course too, he's done enough really bad stuff that it'd be hard politically to support him.
|
I wonder if the FBI investigation is based a lot on the fake news stories, twitter bots/paid trolls, and hacks/wikileaks release. The actual disinformation campaign from the Russians. And whether that could have been coordinated logistically with Trump associates. (The conspiracy theory here would be that the Alfa bank/Trump Tower server activity is related to this). The voter rolls may have been hacked, which would greatly benefit the Trump campaign if that data is handed off to team Trump. Hugely important, since campaigns are driven in large part by the analysis of that data.
|
Carter Page, Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn. All were in the orbit of the Russian oligarchy and leadership – or could very easily be brought into it. Manafort especially. All given roles by Trump, one for the central leadership, two for foreign policy. And Trump has a small circle.
|
In 2008, Trump remarked that he’s afraid of the consequences of doing business with the Russians. This was the the year Trump sold his Florida mansion to a Russian Oligarch at $60 million profit, despite the Oligarch proceeding to simply let the property sit and not stay there. Combine this Trump’s trip and business dealing in Russia, with the beauty pagent, and Trump is in the orbit of the Russian oligarchy and leadership too.
User was warned for this post
|
On April 09 2017 05:46 Doodsmack wrote:
I wonder if the FBI investigation is based a lot on the fake news stories, twitter bots/paid trolls, and hacks/wikileaks release. The actual disinformation campaign from the Russians. And whether that could have been coordinated logistically with Trump associates. (The conspiracy theory here would be that the Alfa bank/Trump Tower server activity is related to this). The voter rolls may have been hacked, which would greatly benefit the Trump campaign if that data is handed off to team Trump. Hugely important, since campaigns are driven in large part by the analysis of that data.
voter rolls are public info anyways, aren't they?
|
Understand something about Donald Trump – he harbors unbridled ambition, and his business career shows that he is slime and simply wants to claw his way to the top by any means necessary. As part of this, he donates to politicians and, most likely, bribes them. All this is from the start of his career in NYC - his father did it, too. So he's in the orbit of the wealthy and powerful, and he sure as hell wants to be there, and understood that doing business with Russians would put him in that orbit - for better or worse.
|
When Trump went bankrupt in 2000, is was not just some small portion of his businesses. He personally went belly up and was only survived without personal bankruptcy by going to war with lawyers and refusing to settle, causing massive legal fees for his opposition, who then settle on terms favorable to Trump. This is also a pattern in Trump's negotiating and strategies elsewhere.
|
Trump entered Atlantic City on $1 billion in junk bonds of debt. That didn't work out - he went belly up. But he has always had his major projects be backed by very slimey strategies, so that he can claw his way to the top. He got tax abatements from NYC that blow the mind. Did he bribe someone or destroy them with legal fees? He did everything with debt - with "other people's money".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
