• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

American politics

Trump launches into his first war by sending 60 tomahawk missiles into Syria, in response to the chemical attack earlier this week..

About time too if you ask me. Should have sent one of those missiles to Assad's house.

Lets see if Russia bites.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DTA
Also confirms my suspicions that the United Nations is a toothless organisation. Had this chemical attack gone to a Security Council vote, Russia would have vetoed it. Hence why Donald Dump decided to go it alone, which in itself is a worrying move. He didn't even get clearance from his party apparently before firing those missiles.
 
awesome dawson said:
Also confirms my suspicions that the United Nations is a toothless organisation. Had this chemical attack gone to a Security Council vote, Russia would have vetoed it. Hence why Donald Dump decided to go it alone, which in itself is a worrying move. He didn't even get clearance from his party apparently before firing those missiles.
Click to expand...
The UN is a ridiculous shambles of career politicians doing everything they can to avoid taking any scary action whatsoever.

This is yet another example of a habit that started back in Rwanda when they disgustingly renamed genocide to "act of a genocidal nature" because declaring it as genocide would have required those fannies to actually do something about it and stop people dying for once.

It's the perfect example of what happens when you add too many people to a decision making group and why politics gets less valid the further away from the electorate it gets.
 
I should also add that had something been done about it when it should have been, the options in Syria would have been Assad's government or the (fairly popular) rebel groups. Due to our inaction, the options appear to be Assad's government or ISIS.
 
Is this the start of world war 3 or nuclear war? I don't know an awful lot about politics but this looks a bit dangerous, although Assad has been fcuking about dangerously for years, this is fcuking off China and Russian relations (if there ever were any).

Obviously not Nuclear war as will it ever get to that stage but can see this getting worse.
 
Last edited:
scaramanga said:
I should also add that had something been done about it when it should have been, the options in Syria would have been Assad's government or the (fairly popular) terrorist groups. Due to our inaction, the options appear to be Assad's government or ISIS.
Click to expand...

FTFY.
 
scaramanga said:
I should also add that had something been done about it when it should have been, the options in Syria would have been Assad's government or the (fairly popular) rebel groups. Due to our inaction, the options appear to be Assad's government or ISIS.
Click to expand...

Dropping more bombs from the air would never, at any point, been enough to remove Assad while he has the backing of Iran and Russia, it is that simple. When it looked bad for him, they stepped in, as they would have done if we dropped bombs a few months earlier than we did. Ground troops is what it takes, but as we saw in Iraq, you can have 150,000 troops on the ground (as the US did) win the war and lose the peace, making a bad situation worse.

It's not like Libya, who didn't have that huge backing. Bombs supporting rebels were enough in Libya to topple a dictator who could use chemical weapons. But then it turns out we didn't think about what comes next there either, and have left the place in a far worse state than we found it, with equally nasty people calling the shots.

IMO, these missile strikes are just a token gesture. Without huge numbers of troops on the ground, it's a stalemate at best. Which begs the question, why would Assad issue a chemical weapons strike such as this in a war that his side is currently winning? Why would you, from his perspective, want to provoke further US involvement? It doesn't make any sense.

There will be a media push for ground troops imo. The anti-Russia sentiment in the mainstream US media is getting pretty hyped now, and this is a proxy war with Russia. If Russia decides to put in lots of ground troops too, then we could end up in a real disastrous situation that ends up killing far more people. But, everytime, people get caught up in the media frenzy and cheerlead another war
 
Anyone see the oliver stone metro interview a few weeks back, basically saying we are already in WW3 with all these wars and cyber wars going on
 
I hope someone somewhere is sensible enough to put a stop to trump tweeting, for now at least. Who knows what he'll say but it won't help defuse tensions, that much is sure.
 
the dza said:
Dropping more bombs from the air would never, at any point, been enough to remove Assad while he has the backing of Iran and Russia, it is that simple. When it looked bad for him, they stepped in, as they would have done if we dropped bombs a few months earlier than we did. Ground troops is what it takes, but as we saw in Iraq, you can have 150,000 troops on the ground (as the US did) win the war and lose the peace, making a bad situation worse.
Click to expand...
Wiping out his airfields would have made a massive difference and could have been done from the air/sea.

Russia wouldn't and couldn't do anything against a large UN-backed force from the West. The country is no more than an angry little man shouting about how much he's going to fudge you up outside a nightclub because you laughed at how fat his girlfriend is.

the dza said:
It's not like Libya, who didn't have that huge backing. Bombs supporting rebels were enough in Libya to topple a dictator who could use chemical weapons. But then it turns out we didn't think about what comes next there either, and have left the place in a far worse state than we found it, with equally nasty people calling the shots.
Click to expand...
I don't want this world to be one where a dictator can use chemical weapons against his own people - it really is that simple.

What happens afterwards is a matter of planning, strategy and execution - that doesn't make the initial decision wrong, it just means it was done incorrectly.

the dza said:
IMO, these missile strikes are just a token gesture. Without huge numbers of troops on the ground, it's a stalemate at best. Which begs the question, why would Assad issue a chemical weapons strike such as this in a war that his side is currently winning? Why would you, from his perspective, want to provoke further US involvement? It doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...
I think it's important to make it very clear that the use of chemical weapons is a line that cannot be crossed. Personally, I believe that we should rid the world of dictators as a rule. If all this does is discourage the use of chemical weapons then it's a win.

the dza said:
There will be a media push for ground troops imo. The anti-Russia sentiment in the mainstream US media is getting pretty hyped now, and this is a proxy war with Russia. If Russia decides to put in lots of ground troops too, then we could end up in a real disastrous situation that ends up killing far more people. But, everytime, people get caught up in the media frenzy and cheerlead another war
Click to expand...
So Russia gets whatever it wants whenever it wants it because army? That doesn't sound like a stable or desirable position for the world to be in.
 
scaramanga said:
Wiping out his airfields would have made a massive difference and could have been done from the air/sea.

Russia wouldn't and couldn't do anything against a large UN-backed force from the West. The country is no more than an angry little man shouting about how much he's going to fudge you up outside a nightclub because you laughed at how fat his girlfriend is.


I don't want this world to be one where a dictator can use chemical weapons against his own people - it really is that simple.

What happens afterwards is a matter of planning, strategy and execution - that doesn't make the initial decision wrong, it just means it was done incorrectly.


I think it's important to make it very clear that the use of chemical weapons is a line that cannot be crossed. Personally, I believe that we should rid the world of dictators as a rule. If all this does is discourage the use of chemical weapons then it's a win.


So Russia gets whatever it wants whenever it wants it because army? That doesn't sound like a stable or desirable position for the world to be in.
Click to expand...

Nothing you write alters the fact that regime change in Syria is almost impossible without a significant force on the ground.

I don't want dictators to use chemical weapons either, it might help if we in the west didn't keep arming people who 'seem alright at the time.' Much easier than bombing them after the fact (Saddam says Hi).

Russia doesn't get to do whatever it likes, I'm merely highlighting a worst case scenario where Russian and American forces fight each other on the ground in Syria. I hope that doesn't happen and I don't think it will.

IMO, America could have helped the Syrian people more if they had not been insistent on Assad going. End the war (by not supporting rebels/terror groups) and take away his chemical weapons as part of a peace settlement. The longer the war goes on, the more people will die. Either that or send in 200,000 troops backed by a huge bombing campaign, with no guarantee of a good outcome (see Iraq power vacuum) and potential of major conflict with Russia (who, despite your claims, are not a nothing nation when it comes to waging war).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back