Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
This is going to be a long God damn 4 years for you guys and for the rest of us too.
Other things that happened today:
- Mitch McConnell proved himself to be the biggest hypocrite in the history of politics, a feat that will be difficult to surpass.
- Trump is holding a summit at his own fucking resort with Xi Jinping out of the public eye. Blaming Obama for literally everything that's ever happened in the world at the same time.
Other things that happened today:
- Mitch McConnell proved himself to be the biggest hypocrite in the history of politics, a feat that will be difficult to surpass.
- Trump is holding a summit at his own fucking resort with Xi Jinping out of the public eye. Blaming Obama for literally everything that's ever happened in the world at the same time.
Assuming we make it that far.
If Trump makes it that far.
Trump could shoot someone on 5th avenue and paul ryan wouldn't grow enough of a spine to call for impeachment.
He could shoot Ryan himself, and Ryan would be on Fox Noise the next morning from his hospital bed explaining how he deserved it.
"And what happened then? Well, some say that Paul Ryan's tiny spine grew three sizes that day."
Syria's been a clusterfuck (and that's putting it mildly) since 2012. Assad has used Chemical weapons (WMDs) before, last week was only the latest usage. The whole thing raises a number of questions though: (and I'll answer what I think, so you can answer the questions and/or answer me if you wish)
Should Assad have been taken to task on this before? And by "taken to task" I mean "deposed via invasion or other means (assassination)" - yes long ago, but the means to do so are iffy, and unknown. I don't know enough about it. But he's killed a lot of people, but is it the USA's duty to take down people who have? The UN should, but it doesn't.
Was it "right" given what happened last week to attack him now? - Yes, but it should have happened a while back IMO, see above
What are the other consequences of such, re: Russia, Iran, and anybody else involved? - This is the major wildcard here, I have no f'n idea on Putin, more below on this.
Will this end the war sooner, or just escalate it? - I'd say unless troops and/or greater military intervention than this, it will do neither, just a lot of posturing.
Does this invalidate the accusations that Trump is Russia-controlled, or not? - given Russia and Assad are close, it seems to go against that particular theory, but I know people on both sides will spin this both ways
What impact does this have on the China negotiations? Nobody can say "well Trump won't use force unilaterally" anymore. How does that affect the North Korea and South China Sea situations, both of which China is obviously very involved in? - See below
I'd argue on the China issue at least that this is part of the point of the timing of this. The negotiations with China are by definition different now that they know that Trump WILL pull the trigger on his own. Good or bad, it changes the tone, and thus I think that's the greater goal here. A good idea? Hell if I know.
The next move on Syria however is Putin's. I'd say the world is watching him now even more than Trump. He can double-down on his support of Assad, or pull out saying "This guy is a tool." I think the first will happen, but you never know.
And because I'm not in the USA, the "Trump criticized Obama for attacking/not" or whatever doesn't matter to me. That has political consequences down the road, but the questions above have consequences for everybody in the world a lot more immediately, not just your political system.
Should Assad have been taken to task on this before? And by "taken to task" I mean "deposed via invasion or other means (assassination)" - yes long ago, but the means to do so are iffy, and unknown. I don't know enough about it. But he's killed a lot of people, but is it the USA's duty to take down people who have? The UN should, but it doesn't.
Was it "right" given what happened last week to attack him now? - Yes, but it should have happened a while back IMO, see above
What are the other consequences of such, re: Russia, Iran, and anybody else involved? - This is the major wildcard here, I have no f'n idea on Putin, more below on this.
Will this end the war sooner, or just escalate it? - I'd say unless troops and/or greater military intervention than this, it will do neither, just a lot of posturing.
Does this invalidate the accusations that Trump is Russia-controlled, or not? - given Russia and Assad are close, it seems to go against that particular theory, but I know people on both sides will spin this both ways
What impact does this have on the China negotiations? Nobody can say "well Trump won't use force unilaterally" anymore. How does that affect the North Korea and South China Sea situations, both of which China is obviously very involved in? - See below
I'd argue on the China issue at least that this is part of the point of the timing of this. The negotiations with China are by definition different now that they know that Trump WILL pull the trigger on his own. Good or bad, it changes the tone, and thus I think that's the greater goal here. A good idea? Hell if I know.
The next move on Syria however is Putin's. I'd say the world is watching him now even more than Trump. He can double-down on his support of Assad, or pull out saying "This guy is a tool." I think the first will happen, but you never know.
And because I'm not in the USA, the "Trump criticized Obama for attacking/not" or whatever doesn't matter to me. That has political consequences down the road, but the questions above have consequences for everybody in the world a lot more immediately, not just your political system.
Dave
Staff member
Can you give a link? I don't see that anywhere.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39529264
There's also mention of Russia maybe strengthening Syria's air defenses.
GasBandit
Staff member
Well, this one thing that might actually not have gone differently if Trump had lost the election.
Hillary Clinton calls for the US to bomb Syrian airfields
Yes, that link is from yesterday, not last year.
Hillary Clinton calls for the US to bomb Syrian airfields
Yes, that link is from yesterday, not last year.
The difference is that I have a lot more trust that Hillary would've thought about the consequences and how to deal with them than I do with trump.
Necronic
Staff member
The thing I find inexcusable is that these attacks are in no way new, Assad has been doing chemical attacks for a while now, and Trump had no problem criticizing the previous administration for what it called heavy handed responses. Yet now, face with pretty much the exact same situation, Trump escalates substantially.
And as for the comparisons to Hillary, Hillary would have escalated much more appropriately. She would not have been sending them signals saying "hey do whatever" one minute and then bombing them the next.
As for my opinion on the region? Some of you may remember that when this happened the first time, many years ago, I said (quite fervently) that we should absolutely get involved militarily. It was a huge mistake that we didn't, and is a cornerstone of the horrendous refugee crisis we are seeing now.
But good lord. Escalating in Syria at this point is a REALLY bad idea. There is no coherent group for us to work with anymore. The best option for us would be to work with NATO and the UN to help stabilize a small part of the region, possibly in the Kurdish lands, and try and create a good/secure/human rights refugee safe zone. Getting into the battle at this point is a very bad idea.
And as for the comparisons to Hillary, Hillary would have escalated much more appropriately. She would not have been sending them signals saying "hey do whatever" one minute and then bombing them the next.
As for my opinion on the region? Some of you may remember that when this happened the first time, many years ago, I said (quite fervently) that we should absolutely get involved militarily. It was a huge mistake that we didn't, and is a cornerstone of the horrendous refugee crisis we are seeing now.
But good lord. Escalating in Syria at this point is a REALLY bad idea. There is no coherent group for us to work with anymore. The best option for us would be to work with NATO and the UN to help stabilize a small part of the region, possibly in the Kurdish lands, and try and create a good/secure/human rights refugee safe zone. Getting into the battle at this point is a very bad idea.
Well duh, it isn't real until it is on TV. Everyone knows that.
Had to be done. According to CNN, russian personnel were present at the base. Russia seems to have been given 30-60 minutes of advance warning, enough for them to get their people out, but not enough to move materials and equipment.
According to Reuters, syrian warplanes have recommenced operating from the Shayrat airfield which was the target of the US attack.
Personally, I'm not at all convinced issues such as 'right' and 'wrong' enter overmuch into the calculations of world powers, nor that they should. According to my understanding, nations mostly act according to their own perceived long or short-term interests, adopting such expedients as the bottom line on their calculations indicate. As long as objective morality does not exist, on balance I might prefer that arrangement over a collection of moral crusaders willing to wage war to promote their own brand of truth.
To be certain, I am in no way condoning Assad's actions which prompted this US cruise missile strike, or his other acts during the civil war that has raged in Syria for so long. Killing scores of civilians by poison gas in a town that just happened to be downwind from a rebel position shows a callous disregard for innocent life. Everyone knows that Bad Stuff happens in a civil war, but bringing out the chemical weapons is a bit too much. That being said, such things are nothing new under the sun. Atrocities have been committed throughout history, including recent history, and whether those atrocities were condemned or hushed down depended to a large degree on which side of a virtual front line the perpetrators were located. On its own, I'm not sure I see why this incident would merit military invasion or assassination.
I agree. Russia has interests in Syria, and at this point sees those interests best served by helping Assad. A single airstrike on a single airbase is not going to change the the balance of power in that war, and even if it did or a more substantial air campaign aimed at toppling Assad's regime was launched, unless Russia can be persuaded to see things differently, they'll keep supporting Assad enough to keep him in the fight.
Well, should cause McCain and Graham to pipe down a little.
Russia has condemned the attack and spoken about bolstering Syrian air defences, a rather moderate reply. I suppose he's not expecting anything much more substantial fom Trump. At any rate, I think Putin has too much invested in his Syrian venture to fold straight away.
Could be. According to this article, Trump administration was pretty much resigned on the situation in Syria, and now an airstrike. Unpredictability FTW.
One wonders if Trump's previous position on Syria might have had some impact on Assad's thinking with his chemical weapons strike that, with Russian support and a resigned America, he had carte blanche to show those jihadists what's what and improve his position with them in the negotiating table. But I don't know.
In the aftermath of Arab Spring, we did get militarily involved in Libya, and it didn't work. I'm not sure how a commitment in Syria could have had a better chance of success, and, if we are talking boots on the ground, how another land war in Asia could be sustained potentially for an extended period of time with a US domestic front that had been through years of bogged-down fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yeah. The rebel groups are pretty much all jihadists or jihadist-lites, and have been for several years now, due in no small part to the moderates not receiving any meaningful support, leaving the jihadist groups the only rebel factions with an influx of weapons and money. The others joined up over time, some willingly, some less so.
And just about the only existing faction which has a consistent record of fighting against jihadists and could potentially stabilize the country just got 59 cruise missiles shot into their airbase.
Last edited:
@TommiR I appreciate you responding to my post. Most here just kept on about Trump-hypocrite and not really addressing WHAT is happening in the region with regards to the rest of the world.
Short answer is I disagree with your positions about international morals vs pragmatism and/or self-interest, but it's a longer discussion than for here. I think we mostly agree on the "what" if not the "why" for the region as it is NOW though.
Short answer is I disagree with your positions about international morals vs pragmatism and/or self-interest, but it's a longer discussion than for here. I think we mostly agree on the "what" if not the "why" for the region as it is NOW though.
Fascinating article on Syria in the National Post: If Trump really wants to make liberals happy, here’s one way to do it: wipe out Syria’s air force
I don't know how much of it is practical, but it's not a terrible idea either. It's also interesting how the article goes into the history of US actions there (VERY lightly).
What hasn't been said much regarding this conflict though, is how much of the other "ancillary" problems (refugees) from this war will be lessened and/or eliminated if the country becomes peaceful again? How many would return home? How many wouldn't? I don't see that discussed much.
I don't know how much of it is practical, but it's not a terrible idea either. It's also interesting how the article goes into the history of US actions there (VERY lightly).
What hasn't been said much regarding this conflict though, is how much of the other "ancillary" problems (refugees) from this war will be lessened and/or eliminated if the country becomes peaceful again? How many would return home? How many wouldn't? I don't see that discussed much.
uhh, no. If he wanted to make this liberal happy, he'd
1) Marry off his daughter to me with a million dollar dowry (or more if she needs more); and then
2) Let me fly one them jets and bomb Syria's airfields. Lots of fun.
I'd even be willing to reverse the order of those two so if I buy it on my bombing run (I don't know how to fly a jet!) Ivanka wouldn't be left a widow.
Who would want to discuss that? From a European standpoint, at least. The Right is already screaming about closing the borders 'cause they're all coming here and taking over - obviously they should all be sent back, but equally obviously, they'll all want to stay. The Left wants us to accept more and support and help them and teach them our language and integrate and all that jazz. Saying "oh but when the fighting's over they'll all go home" sounds ridiculous and also means all training/teaching language/whatever efforts are useless, and hiring one is a mistake, since they'll leave...but saying "they can all stay!" pretty much means you accept that they're not refugees, they're immigrants - which is something the Left is doing their best to hide, pretty much.
Nobody wants to have the discussion about "yes, some will go back, but many, especially those who are unwilling to go and struggle and work hard, will probably stay - because living on welfare here is vastly preferable over living in hardship and famine over there, for the near future".
GasBandit
Staff member
GasBandit
Staff member
Well, it's not that it's not there to be dug, it's just they have to get to it deep underground like this:You can't unmine coal. Once it's gone, it's gone. And no amount of screaming "FUCK OBAMA!" is going to make it magically appear back in the ground.
Not that they haven't tried. Shit, it's the only thing they've tried.
When over in Wyoming, they're basically just scraping it into trucks like this.
And that way needs a lot less people to get a lot more coal in a lot less time.
They were doing it like that here for a time. It was called mountaintop removal, and caused no end of controversy over the environmental damage that was done. First to the mountains themselves, then to the streams and valleys where the debris was eventually dumped. It's been drastically cut back, if not outright banned.Well, it's not that it's not there to be dug, it's just they have to get to it deep underground like this:
When over in Wyoming, they're basically just scraping it into trucks like this.
And that way needs a lot less people to get a lot more coal in a lot less time.
There's just not the space to turn WV into a vast open pit mine... yet. At the rate the Legislature drives out the young people and the rest ages and dies off, soon the guys like Bob Murray will have their wish.
Open pit mines don't always mean cutting down mountains, rather often it's just taking off soil off of a relatively flat place because what you need is beneath it. What you also need is legislation obligating companies to put the top layers BACK when they're done and re-green it. It's been done, but it often isn't, which causes all the problems you mention.
I'm saying in general. No idea what WV is like.
I'm saying in general. No idea what WV is like.