President Trump & the USA

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

You're making an assumption based on prejudice rather than fact. I think it's safe to say that American intelligence will know more about what happened than they're telling us. If this had been another President there wouldn't be half the fuss. 

 

Since when was it not prudent to be cynical about Middle Eastern interventions regardless of administration when so many of them have turned out to be blatant politicking and/or power consolidations? There are quite a few similar humanitarian crises happening around the world right now (Nigeria, Sudan, Somalia, North Korea, even perhaps Venezuela), some with bigger death counts (though perhaps none involving chemical weaponry).

 

This one was chosen for the sake of realpolitik, nothing more.

 

(Also, as above - this administration could by the most socially liberal peace-loving one in history and it's environmental/energy policy would still make it a bad one.)

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Buce said:

 

I'm also wondering if the timing is significant, too.

 

I suspect this was more about sending the Chinese a message about NK and the South China Sea.

 

Possible. Adds weight to the talks regarding the SCS and North Korea, though how effective that is is open to question.

 

1 minute ago, Merging Cultures said:

They are hardly the most sophisticated group, and have shown they are as flexible with their ideologies as he is.

Was trying to make that point too; more of them than might be thought would come around to the idea of firing rockets at brown people if the right message is broadcast.

[Merging Cultures]

24 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Where's the Assad thread? A leader, for the second time, uses nerve gas against his own people and there's not a mention. Trump does what Obama promised to do but bottled out of doing and it's him who's the bad guy.

 

I know I'll be accused of being a Trump supporter, I'm not, I'm indifferent to him. Lets just have a little perspective.

I'll ask a mod if we can create one

 

It probably was Assad, he'd have known that Trump would have 'shot a warning across the bow'. Obama should have 100% have done more, he was trying to get consensus in Congress to do it. Trump doesn't care about that, even though he said Obama should...

[Merging Cultures]

13 minutes ago, Webbo said:

You're making an assumption based on prejudice rather than fact. I think it's safe to say that American intelligence will know more about what happened than they're telling us. If this had been another President there wouldn't be half the fuss. 

There would have been more fuss. The Republican base (as you have said) did/does not want to go to war with Syria. Trump himself had said so many times. The Republican media would have been crazed if Obama had bombed Syria.

[Lako42]

2 hours ago, SMX11 said:

Stinks off a false flag tbh, it makes no sense whatsoever for Assad to use these weapons in the current situation. By all accounts the 'rebels' have been pushed back and the regime were winning the war.

 

The speed in which the US responded also concerns me, there is no objective source for these allegations and you shouldn't act on a hunch imo. I agree that Trump has probably done this mostly because of the Russia allegations. He was caught in a trap and now has torpedoed is presidency. Most of his base was against further foreign interventions.

A false flag?

 

That depends if you are the kind of person who thinks that it takes the use of chemical weapons to justify a response.

 

I'm usually an absolute stickler for the facts, but on this occasion I couldn't really give two shits if it looks like a 'false flag' or not. The atrocities in Syria have been ongoing for 6 years, the fact that it takes the use of chemical weapons for anyone to give enough of a shit is frankly unacceptable.

 

Also, let's not pretend this is the 1st time he's done it. He's used chemical weapons on his own people before, unfortunately the previous president didn't have the bollocks to tell Russia and their right to veto UN action to go and **** themselves.

 

I can't see much , if any, more action being taken, but it's a warning shot fired at an abhorrent, insipid regime.

 

I hate Trump and the majority of his views, I admire his determination to follow through with them.

[Webbo]

25 minutes ago, Merging Cultures said:

There would have been more fuss. The Republican base (as you have said) did/does not want to go to war with Syria. Trump himself had said so many times. The Republican media would have been crazed if Obama had bombed Syria.

What is the Republican media, apart from Fox news? From the coverage of the election it seems most of the media is Democrat.

[Buce]

20 minutes ago, Lako42 said:

A false flag?

 

That depends if you are the kind of person who thinks that it takes the use of chemical weapons to justify a response.

 

I'm usually an absolute stickler for the facts, but on this occasion I couldn't really give two shits if it looks like a 'false flag' or not. The atrocities in Syria have been ongoing for 6 years, the fact that it takes the use of chemical weapons for anyone to give enough of a shit is frankly unacceptable.

 

Also, let's not pretend this is the 1st time he's done it. He's used chemical weapons on his own people before, unfortunately the previous president didn't have the bollocks to tell Russia and their right to veto UN action to go and **** themselves.

 

I can't see much , if any, more action being taken, but it's a warning shot fired at an abhorrent, insipid regime.

 

I hate Trump and the majority of his views, I admire his determination to follow through with them.

 

Like these views, you mean?

 

[Lako42]

4 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Like these views, you mean?

 

I don't count the crap he spouts on Twitter as policy.

 

Plus, the action in Syria may well aid rebels in some ways, but it wasn't commited for the benefit of them directly, it was to send a message to a genocide commiting lunatic.

 

 

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Webbo said:

What is the Republican media, apart from Fox news? From the coverage of the election it seems most of the media is Democrat.

Breitbart, Infowars, American Thinker, Drudge Report, NewsMax...they're the biggest ones, anyway.

 

4 minutes ago, Lako42 said:

I don't count the crap he spouts on Twitter as policy.

 

Plus, the action in Syria may well aid rebels in some ways, but it wasn't commited for the benefit of them directly, it was to send a message to a genocide commiting lunatic.

 

 

2

While serving his own power-related interests well, as discussed above.

[Lako42]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Breitbart, Infowars, American Thinker, Drudge Report, NewsMax...they're the biggest ones, anyway.

 

While serving his own power-related interests well, as discussed above.

I'm not sure there are many political decisions that do anything other than this?

 

Whether it benefits Trump is irrelevant, in fact there is no indication that it does benefit him.

 

The fact is that the regime that is currently killing it's own people in the name of creating a submissive population has been warned that the wider world won't just sit around having meaningless meetings about it.

[leicsmac]

Oh, and it's funny that this administration cares enough about Syrian kids to send in a few rockets when they get gassed, but not apparently enough to allow them to come to the US.

 

1 minute ago, Lako42 said:

I'm not sure there are many political decisions that do anything other than this?

 

Whether it benefits Trump is irrelevant, in fact there is no indication that it does benefit him.

 

The fact is that the regime that is currently killing it's own people in the name of creating a submissive population has been warned that the wider world won't just sit around having meaningless meetings about it.

2

Sort of my point, which makes the second sentence pertinent too.

 

Of course it's relevant about this benefitting or not benefitting Trump, because if it didn't then he wouldn't have done it - simple realpolitik. I just take issue with any argument saying that this was intended to benefit the Syrian people in a humanitarian fashion (except purely cosmetically).

[Lako42]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Oh, and it's funny that this administration cares enough about Syrian kids to send in a few rockets when they get gassed, but not apparently enough to allow them to come to the US.

 

Sort of my point, which makes the second sentence pertinent too.

 

Of course it's relevant about this benefitting or not benefitting Trump, because if it didn't then he wouldn't have done it - simple realpolitik. I just take issue with any argument saying that this was intended to benefit the Syrian people in a humanitarian fashion (except purely cosmetically).

Of course it doesn't benefit them directly in a humanitarian fashion, although it certainly might in the long run if is dissuades their wonderful leader from gassing them again in the future.

 

The problem you have is with the entire political system and the way and why it's stakeholders make the decisions they do.

 

I'm not wanting to get into a debate about the overall state of politics and it's decision making process, I simply approve of the actions on this occasion, without needing to do a deep dive survey into who or why it benefits the person who carried it out.

 

On a personal level what do you think? should we reconvene in another 6 years after more of the same?

[Webbo]

40 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Breitbart, Infowars, American Thinker, Drudge Report, NewsMax...they're the biggest ones, anyway.

 

 

I'm not sure they count as media.

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I'm not sure they count as media.

Why not? They reach millions of people and millions of people believe them.

 

Underestimating new media was one of the (many) reasons Trump won in the first place - it's not a good idea to dismiss them.

 

16 minutes ago, Lako42 said:

Of course it doesn't benefit them directly in a humanitarian fashion, although it certainly might in the long run if is dissuades their wonderful leader from gassing them again in the future.

 

The problem you have is with the entire political system and the way and why it's stakeholders make the decisions they do.

 

I'm not wanting to get into a debate about the overall state of politics and it's decision making process, I simply approve of the actions on this occasion, without needing to do a deep dive survey into who or why it benefits the person who carried it out.

 

On a personal level what do you think? should we reconvene in another 6 years after more of the same?

 

I'm a cynic when it comes to such things - looking for the angles when it comes to people with power and wanting to stay there.

 

Speaking personally Assad has  - probably - done some horrible things here and that's terrible, but he's hardly the only local or national leader around the world to be doing that (using nerve agent makes for a good headline though) and if Assad merits the kind of attention you get from multiple rocket launches, then it perhaps follows that so do they. That's a large part of where the cynicism comes from. Though of course you could make the argument that this is saving the world one hellhole at a time.

 

Also, given he has the Russians willing to back him, I'm honestly not sure doing this would cause him to stop except for a moments thought anyway.

[leicsmac]

Twitter having fun with the press pic of Trump being briefed:

 

https://twitter.com/DanaHoule/status/850364632111906817

 

And in other news, Gorsuch to be confirmed today. Wonder if/when the challenges to Roe v Wade and Oberfell v Hodges will come rolling in?

[Benguin]

53 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Twitter having fun with the press pic of Trump being briefed:

 

https://twitter.com/DanaHoule/status/850364632111906817

 

And in other news, Gorsuch to be confirmed today. Wonder if/when the challenges to Roe v Wade and Oberfell v Hodges will come rolling in?

Hope Roe v Wade does get challenged. No chance that Oberfell will be overturned.

[leicsmac]

22 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Hope Roe v Wade does get challenged. No chance that Oberfell will be overturned.

We've probably had this discussion before but until all violations of bodily autonomy to save or preserve the life of another where responsibility may or may not be a factor are rendered mandatory with legal consequences if they're not adhered to, singling out one (even if that one is likely the most common and especially when that one only directly involves one demographic) is hypocritical.

 

Edit: out of curiosity, why do you think Oberfell won't be overruled and R v W might?

Edited 7 April 2017 by leicsmac

[Merging Cultures]

3 hours ago, Webbo said:

What is the Republican media, apart from Fox news? From the coverage of the election it seems most of the media is Democrat.

Fox is the most watched news show, and from there it goes down hill. Talk radio is popular, and the majority of talk radio stations are Republican. Also, people seek out the news they want, such as infowars, Rush Limbaugh etc, to verify their insecurities and concerns.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

Any country or power that uses chemical weapons, deserves 100% to be attacked by missiles. Donald Trump made the correct decision to use them, and all decent countries should back him. Assad is a butcher, who cares not how he achieves his ambitions. I hope he gets killed.

[Benguin]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

We've probably had this discussion before but until all violations of bodily autonomy to save or preserve the life of another where responsibility may or may not be a factor are rendered mandatory with legal consequences if they're not adhered to, singling out one (even if that one is likely the most common and especially when that one only directly involves one demographic) is hypocritical.

 

Edit: out of curiosity, why do you think Oberfell won't be overruled and R v W might?

Yeah won't get into it because we always end up just agreeing to disagree.

 

Roe v Wade could be put to a democratic vote and only a foolish person would predict the outcome. Oberfell would be an overwhelming majority in its favour. I think it'd be silly for them to try and overturn that one.

[leicsmac]

45 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Yeah won't get into it because we always end up just agreeing to disagree.

 

Roe v Wade could be put to a democratic vote and only a foolish person would predict the outcome. Oberfell would be an overwhelming majority in its favour. I think it'd be silly for them to try and overturn that one.

Really? That's interesting - I'd have thought both rulings were split along similar ideological lines so the amount of people in favour and against would be similar too, accounting for a little error either way, of course.

 

Guess we might have the opportunity to find out in due course.

[Benguin]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Really? That's interesting - I'd have thought both rulings were split along similar ideological lines so the amount of people in favour and against would be similar too, accounting for a little error either way, of course.

 

Guess we might have the opportunity to find out in due course.

 

Ahh political compassing at its best. Pro life, though backed heavily by religion, is or rather was a liberal ideology. Being against same sex marriage is certainly not liberal unless your position is that the marriage is fine so long as a minister of religion is not forced to do the service under discriminatory laws, in that case is the oppression of the minister, who devotes his life to a cause, less than the oppression of the couple he refuses to wed? I'd like to think people are more free thinking and take each issue on its own merits.

 

Most Christians, as we're surely discussing them here, are far more tolerant over homosexuality than they're of abortion as they see the latter as murder. I'd conservatively guess that Oberfell is supported 5 or 6 times less than Roe v Wade amongst American Christians. As for the rest of the electorate, pro life v pro choice is still relatively divided whereas same sex marriage is totally one sided, even amongst republicans. 

 

[foxes21]

The chem attack was a false flag operation, so America will attack Assad and Syria.

Vietnam, Korea, Iraq wars all started on similar false flags.

 

This is going to force Russia's hand. Russia have to protect their natural gas pipeline they have running through Syria to Europe, which Russia uses to supply Europe with gas. 42% of EU's natural gas comes from Russia, through this pipeline. That pipeline is hugely important, for the Russian economy.

 

There are multiple pipeline plans to pass through Syria & into Europe. The Qatar-Turkey pipeline, the Iran-Iraq Pipeline & the Nabucco pipeline. Russia need to protect their asset, to stop this from happening or their economy will completely fall.

 

The true winner here is the military industrial complex, who will make billions.

 

 

 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

3 minutes ago, foxes21 said:

The chem attack was a false flag operation, so America will attack Assad and Syria.

Vietnam, Korea, Iraq wars all started on similar false flags.

 

This is going to force Russia's hand. Russia have to protect their natural gas pipeline they have running through Syria to Europe, which Russia uses to supply Europe with gas. 42% of EU's natural gas comes from Russia, through this pipeline. That pipeline is hugely important, for the Russian economy.

 

There are multiple pipeline plans to pass through Syria & into Europe. The Qatar-Turkey pipeline, the Iran-Iraq Pipeline & the Nabucco pipeline. Russia need to protect their asset, to stop this from happening or their economy will completely fall.

 

The true winner here is the military industrial complex, who will make billions.

 

 

 

 

False flag by whom? 

 

And how would whoever orchestrated the attack be sure the US would respond, given Trump's previously stated position?

[The Floyd]

On a lighter note, Sophie from Peep Show is 14/1 with PP to win the 2020 presidential election. Chance would be a fine thing!