Politics

[dkst0426]

LOL, this is Hillary's fault.

Is it too much to ask these motherfuckers to not get us into a war for one goddamned presidency?

Isn't it an interesting coincidence that today Hillary had her first interview since the election & says we should bomb the airfields and tonight, Donald bombs the airfields?

Guess he's trying to show us that he doesn't just listen to Fox News and then take on their positions, but can listen to the other side as well.

 

[Topher]

 

[dkst0426]

Apparently, we warned the Russians first.

And in a show of good faith:



Also per AP:

3:15 p.m.

The Russian military says its facilities in Syria are reliably protected by cutting edge air defense weapons, a statement that follows a U.S. missile strike on a Syrian air base.

Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov said Friday that the S-400 and Pantsyr air defense systems offer a "guaranteed protection" to Russian warplanes stationed at Hemeimeem air base in Syria's province of Latakia.

He added that a Russian navy outpost in Syria's Mediterranean port of Tartus is protected by S-300 air defense systems.

Konashenkov has previously said that the Russian military would help the Syrian military beef up its air defenses following the U.S. strike.

___

3:05 p.m.

The Kremlin says the presidential Security Council has voiced regret over the damage to U.S.-Russia ties inflicted by the U.S. strike on a Syrian air base.

The Kremlin said in a statement carried by Russian news agencies that the senior Russian officials who attended Friday's meeting described the U.S. action as an "act of aggression in violation of international law."

It added that the meeting's participants discussed "various issues related to the continuation of Russian air force operations in support of the Syrian army's anti-terror actions."

The Kremlin said those who spoke at the meeting voiced a "deep concern over inevitable negative consequences of such aggressive actions for joint efforts to fight terrorism."

 

[surfpenguin]

Congress blocked Obama from acting on Syria. Let's not forget that.

I think Obama could have used force in Syria if he actually wanted to, using the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). It's pretty much a carte blanche for any president to engage in warfare as long as it's fighting "terrorism." Even though this was an attack against a sovereign government, Trump can just use the "terrorism" excuse and there isn't anything congress can do (even though this congress doesn't give a shit).

This is the section of the AUMF that gives the president the power to commit acts of war without the approval of congress:

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

 

[aiw]

It was a way for Obama to get out of having to do it.

Anyway, the dog is wagging bigly. I have little doubt that this was Putin's idea.

 

[deepdarkblue]

God bless Trump for attacking Syria, because it gave me this gift

 

[deepdarkblue]

 

[dkst0426]

Congress blocked Obama from acting on Syria. Let's not forget that.

I think Obama could have used force in Syria if he actually wanted to, using the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). It's pretty much a carte blanche for any president to engage in warfare as long as it's fighting "terrorism." Even though this was an attack against a sovereign government, Trump can just use the "terrorism" excuse and there isn't anything congress can do (even though this congress doesn't give a shit).

This is the section of the AUMF that gives the president the power to commit acts of war without the approval of congress:

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

"Carte blanche" is precisely what would be the point of concern.

 

[CK86]

So now might be going to war randomly with North Korea. These idiots in charge are going to have us in a half dozen wars that they started by the end of the year.

 

[deepdarkblue]

Raytheon is going to make a FORTUNE, though!! Maybe they'll pull out all those draft registrations, and start calling people up. What a great way to create jobs. (I would okay with that, actually, as long as the only people who got called up were all the Pepe the Frog motherfuckers)

 

[sjsj2448]

So now might be going to war randomly with North Korea. These idiots in charge are going to have us in a half dozen wars that they started by the end of the year.

Well, to be fair, something should probably be done with North Korea before they get the bomb. It's really the fault of several past administrations for kicking that can down the road.

If we sit back and do nothing, the current loon or one after him will eventually just say "screw it" when his unsustainable government collapses. He'll go out with a bang and take Tokyo, Seoul, LA, and San Francisco with him.

 

[sjsj2448]

You seem to know next to nothing about foreign affairs. Please stop posting.

That's oddly aggressive. You must have quite a bit of equity here.

I know I'm new, and I may be interrupting your echo chamber, but being rude to people who disagree with you is not a good look.

 

[Topher]

Who are we trying to impress?

 

[sivartrenrag]

Axe = CHS

 

[sjsj2448]

I just read something about how North Korea is the fault of the last couple administrations and I can't help but think you're incredibly ignorant of just how **** terrible a situation that is and has been for... 64 years? Kim Jong Un isn't the greatest threat, merely the newest.

It's not like there has ever been a situation where we did not have a completely, wildly, preposterously larger military striking forces than they did. The problem is and has always been that they have enough conventional artillery armed with dead-man switches that are pointing at Seoul waiting to level it. God knows what kind of chemical weapons they've been saving up to lob over the DMZ.

The loss of life is nearly incalculable if we went to war with them, but has not historically been to us, rather to our allies. And if we let one of our closest allies get destroyed, how many allies do you think we're going to have the next day?

They know these things, plus they exhibit an obvious and calculating indifference to the lives of their own people. What can you **** do against a place like that?

The potential threat to us is a new and unpleasant twist here, but it doesn't change the basics of the situation. We can't do much of anything about their aggression because they will wipe the floor with the countries around them.

We're stuck between a rock and a hard place here. We don't have much real leverage over the one country that has leverage over them, and that's been the case since the 1950's.

So yes, I was dismissive of your posting. Because I think it was a stunningly stupid thing to post.

I am familiar the Korean War and the 60+ year history. Grandfather was a member of the U.S. Army during the time period. Kim Jong Un is the greatest threat, IMO, because he's within a year away from having nuclear weapons, per some military folks I've read. There are no good options, you're right there. It's going to be absolutely awful either way. I would just rather save American lives now instead of seeing LA and SF nuked in 20 years. We just disagree, because you likely think there is a way to prevent the North Koreans from using the weapons if they get them. I am just not that optimistic.

I will add this: even if Japan and South Korea and the rest of our allies get mad at us, what are they going to do? We control the global shipping lanes. The U.S. has, by far, the best navy, air Force, and army in the history of mankind. The U.S. is the muscle of the UN and NATO.

"Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." -Thucydides

 

[niveklaen]

You seem to know next to nothing about foreign affairs. Please stop posting.

That's oddly aggressive. You must have quite a bit of equity here.

I know I'm new, and I may be interrupting your echo chamber, but being rude to people who disagree with you is not a good look.

I just read something about how North Korea is the fault of the last couple administrations and I can't help but think you're incredibly ignorant of just how fucking terrible a situation that is and has been for... 64 years? Kim Jong Un isn't the greatest threat, merely the newest.

It's not like there has ever been a situation where we did not have a completely, wildly, preposterously larger military striking forces than they did. The problem is and has always been that they have enough conventional artillery armed with dead-man switches that are pointing at Seoul waiting to level it. God knows what kind of chemical weapons they've been saving up to lob over the DMZ.

The loss of life is nearly incalculable if we went to war with them, but has not historically been to us, rather to our allies. And if we let one of our closest allies get destroyed, how many allies do you think we're going to have the next day?

They know these things, plus they exhibit an obvious and calculating indifference to the lives of their own people. What can you fucking do against a place like that?

The potential threat to us is a new and unpleasant twist here, but it doesn't change the basics of the situation. We can't do much of anything about their aggression because they will wipe the floor with the countries around them.

We're stuck between a rock and a hard place here. We don't have much real leverage over the one country that has leverage over them, and that's been the case since the 1950's.

So yes, I was dismissive of your posting. Because I think it was a stunningly stupid thing to post.

You were dismissive of his posting because you misread it and/or were looking to pick a fight.

he said last several, not last couple. several usually means 6 or more - couple being 2 and few being 3-5 - 6+ is a perfectly fine description of how long the problem has existed. your reply was a stunningly stupid post.

 

[ZackM]

Bruh, few and several are not defined like that.

 

[niveklaen]

Bruh, few and several are not defined like that.

couple is less than few is less than several. couple is 2. I don't know any other way to conceive of several.

 

[ZackM]

These words have actual definitions. You don't need to try and assign exact counts for them.

 

[aiw]

Um, he already has nuclear weapons.