StrangeSox

When this hypothetical situation comes to pass, feel free to chastise us.

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/850359674717319168

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/se...m=.ed1316b9ce77 Gorusch confirmed.

Obama went to Congress to ask for authorization to make a military strike on Assad, which the Republicans denied him. He did this after having participated in military intervention in Libya (which did not go well and is still a s***show), increasing troop presence in Afghanistan, and having a large scale drone program running. The idea that Obama didn't have military intervention on the table is delusional.

I'm sort of confused by what the relation is to "neolibs" too since neoliberalism is about economics and it seems like a pretty tenuous connection to anti-Muslim immigration policies.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/world/mi...s&smtyp=cur This article infuriates me.

It's not, but there's been a raging civil war going on there for over half a decade now and Assad's done plenty of heinous s*** with and without chemical weapons. The US getting more involved in Syria is not going to end well for anyone including Syrians.

Yes, but Assad had allegedly turned over all of his CW in a deal brokered by the US and Russia back in 2014 (or whatever the last post in this thread was before I bumped it).

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Apr 7, 2017 -> 10:02 AM) I like when people start the "political route" doesn't work, we must bomb. When has the "bomb route" ever worked? Also, since when does this administration and people that like Trump all the sudden start giving a s*** about Syrian citizens or people in the middle east in general? They only ever get "humanitarian" when it's an excuse to bomb something. He has banned refugees and cut back on humanitarian aid. Trump authorized a mission in Yemen that ended up with a Navy Seal shooting a 6 year old girl in the neck, in which she bleed out and died from. Give me a f***ing break about people giving a s*** about people in that area. BOMB THEM AND TAKE THEIR OIL TORTURE WORKS! WE MUST TORTURE! KILL THEIR FAMILIES! NO REFUGEES! NO FOREIGN AID! Oh but we're definitely bombing for ~humanitarian reasons~

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Apr 7, 2017 -> 10:00 AM) I read 30 minutes, but if it was enough time for Russian soldiers to escape... I'd imagine the ratio of Russian soldiers + assets to Syrian soldiers + assets would be important here. We launched several dozen cruise missiles and only managed to destroy a handful of planes and kill 7 (I think?) people, so I'm guessing they got some of their stuff and people out of there.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Apr 7, 2017 -> 09:51 AM) I'm confused why Russia wouldn't have also told Assad's troops to evacuate. Collateral damage? I think they largely did, but I'm not sure how much notice they actually got.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Apr 7, 2017 -> 09:21 AM) Russia was informed in advance. Congress was bypassed It's 100% a good thing that we informed Russia so that they could evacuate rather than killing Russian soldiers. Congress should be providing authorization here, but they should be overseeing the endless droning we've been doing across the Middle East and North Africa for years.

Campaigning/popping off at the mouth is different than governing, as both Trump and the House GOP are learning. edit: you do have tons of elected GOP you can point out the hypocrisy of, though. McConnell, Rubio, Ryan, and many others have come out praising Trump's strike but chastised Obama for wanting to do basically the same exact thing the first time Assad was using chemical weapons.

this country sure does love war

US economy only added 98k jobs in March.

I had hoped a deeply unpopular and thus far totally incompetent President launching a military strike wouldn't trigger the war boners, but I was very dumb.

please don't escalate please don't escalate please don't escalate please don't escalate please don't escalate

Russian missile boat heading to the area http://tass.com/defense/939994

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Apr 7, 2017 -> 08:23 AM) Politicians are always scared to be against moves like this, just in case it can be construed as anti-patriotism and anti-"SUPPORT THE TROOPS". That's true for some, but I think a lot of them are genuinely interventionist hawks. It's interesting how, worldwide, there's little coverage and outrage when conventional bombing kills many hundreds of people a week, but when it's chemical weapons, it's a line that just can't be crossed. It's a common global thing and not specific to Trump or the US but sort of standard since WWI.

I don't think anyone wants to take control of that s***show. You've got dozens of in-country sectional fights (Assad loyalists, secular rebels though they're pretty much wiped out by now, Islamist rebels of all stripes), multiple regional groups (Kurds, Turkey, Iran), and global interests (US, Russia) as well. It'd be like deciding to invade and take over a country that was in the state Iraq was in in 2005.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Apr 7, 2017 -> 08:18 AM) It's all the same people that cheered on the Iraq war. If history tells us anything, it's that this won't be the end of it. More than likely the start. Interestingly, there's a bunch of "never trump!" neocons coming around to him because they love nothing more than bombing the Middle East while his alt-right base is freaking out because they thought he was an isolationist for some reason. edit: the US has had "advisors" in Syria both officially and unofficially for at least a couple of years now.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Apr 7, 2017 -> 08:14 AM) Trump is obviously the 1st person in the history of the world to change their opinion over the course of 3+ years during an escalating military situation. Are TWEETS! the new E-MAILS! That there's a perfect Trump tweet for essentially every situation pointing out him having said the exact opposite is more entertaining than anything, though I do think the "Obama is going to bomb Syria to boost his low ratings" tweet is basically what's happening here. As the initial reaction shows, Americans sure do love going all Team America:World Police and blowing s*** up.

Hillary would have been doing the same thing, unfortunately, but with a clearer and more coherent stance rather than the Trump administration's flailing for 24-48 hours. I'm not sure if Russia allowing Assad to be taken out would be in their best long-term interest, though. Would really damage their credibility with other states they're propping up.

I've only been to Reno a couple of times and the city itself didn't leave a great impression, but you'd have Lake Tahoe and the Sierras in your backyard.

Russia was notified in advance because they had troops stationed there, which was the correct move. Nothing good will come from intervention in Syria, but it's not surprising that Hawks from both parties and the media are cheering this on. Let's hope this strike on a military base is the extent of it.