War in Syria / Yemen

[The Romulan Republic]

This isn't a race or religion thing - stop trying to make it one - this is a - we've spent the last decade and a half dropping bombs on their friends and families thing. I don't think any amount of planning can overcome that kind of justified malice. Those in the middle east have good substantive reasons to hate what we've done over there that has nothing to do with race or religion so do this whole conversation a favor and stow the PC outrage.

Certainly.

Even if you are optimistic and assume, in spite of the actions of the US and others, that those in the ME looking at our actions are willing to assume we have the best of intentions, in spite of evidence to the contrary and enough deaths to make them disinclined to do so, they'd still have plenty of reason to be weary. The track record of the US is still one that suggests a willingness to do things that cause death and suffering for the sake of helping them, even when there is ample evidence that what's being done is not helping or even making things worse.

Now, that being quite generous. After all, there is plenty of evidence that the US and it's allies do not have the interests of Syrians in mind. Certainly, the fact that the current President is a man who once said "I will look Syrian kids in the eye and say "Go Home"" is not something that says that the US government wants to help Syrians.

Yes, we know the US has done truly horrible things in the Middle East (and elsewhere), and if Trump was actually moved by concern for dead Syrian children, well, it would be the first time I can recall that he's shown much in the way of empathy for the less fortunate.

My point is simply that it is unwise to paint an entire region of millions of individuals with the same brush. You may think you're being understanding and anti-imperialist, but you're not. You're presuming to decide what those people "must" think, based on where they're from.

Certainly, many feel the way you describe. But assuming "They're Middle Eastern, so they're against America" is not helpful, to put it mildly.

Nor does one necessarily have to trust America's motives to think that their involvement could be beneficial. I dare say their are many who have little regard for America, but would be happy to see us involved if they felt that it would shift things in their favour. War makes strange allies.

Also, Romulan Republic, in regards to how it could get worse in Syria, you should probably consider the possibility that various radical rebel groups lack the resources to both fight Assad and kill groups they hate, like moderates and each other, so are prioritising the fight with Assad. Plus, moderate rebels are also fighting alongside the radicals and have been known to give them some of the supplies given to them by the west in the past. This is another factor that would encourage a certain pragmatism by radicals in regards to the moderates, a factor that would be removed once Assad is gone. There's also issues in regards to how moderate the moderate rebel groups really are. Certainly, I've yet to see any evidence that they have enough strength and support to rule Syria, if Assad was gone. If anything, I expect them to be swiftly destroyed by the radical groups once that happened, unless the US committed itself to fighting for those groups.

Considering that the main radical Islamist groups are Al Nursra (and off-shoot of Al Qaeda) and Daesh, and that the US is already at war with both, and would likely escalate its operations against both if it became more involved in Syria...

Of course, none of this changes the fact that as long as we have an idiot running the country, and Putin is backing Assad, the risks of intervention are too high. I simply find the automatic opposition to any intervention, and the arguments often advanced in defence of that position, highly questionable in their reasoning.

Edit: I'm also deeply concerned about the implications for how Trump is likely to handle future domestic political crises, because I suspect that this was done, at least in part, to throw off suspicion about his ties to Russia, and get a popularity boost.

I fully expect that he'll start a conflict with North Korea or Iran if it looks like an impeachment is in the wind.

Whatever one thinks of attacking Assad in theory, I really don't think that Donald Trump suddenly started caring about the lives of Middle Eastern civilians in the last couple of days.

[Bernkastel]

Actually, I am not applying the reasoning of "They're Middle Eastern, so they're against America". I do not consider it logical to trust that the US would act in a way that benefits the interests of the Syrian people. Even when the US government does want to help other nations, it does have an attitude of "We know what's right and don't care if those affected by our policies disagree" in that regard. Of course, that is just my opinion. But I doubt those who are so close to the results of recent US policies would be inclined to give the US the benefit of the doubt in regards to actually wanting to help them or, more importantly, that the US will act in a way that would actually help them. I will say there is evidence that there are Syrians who do not blame the American people for all that's happened, but that does not translate to a willingness to trust the US government or rely on it.

Yes, in theory, US policy could help the Syrian people. But that theoretical scenario would require a new US government that rejected both Trumpist attitudes and long term foreign policy problems, like aiding dubious groups on the basis of that group currently opposing a current enemy and not thinking about the long term consequences of doing so. The US government would also have to be a lot more willing to listen to the Syrians and a lot less eager to act on it's own ideas of how things are and how they should be. I'd be doubtful of the later happening even if the Democrats had power to any degree. In the Trump era, the very thought is a joke. I fully expect more pointless machismo gestures that does nothing to actually help anything in the future. Plus, Trump is a leader who handed Merkel a fake bill for owed NATO money. Thinking how he'd handle the kind of intervention needed is horrifying. I wouldn't be surprised if that involved something like trying to get the Syrians to somehow pay the costs of the intervention like the US hoped to to in Iraq.

"Considering that the main radical Islamist groups are Al Nursra (and off-shoot of Al Qaeda) and Daesh, and that the US is already at war with both, and would likely escalate its operations against both if it became more involved in Syria..."

That would only be the case if it scaled up it's involvement enough and didn't focus on, say, bombing ISIS and Assad. Though that it just a hypothetical, given that I doubt the Trump admin is willing to do any actual action against Assad beyond strikes like his retaliatory one, where the Syrians had enough advance warning to minimise the effect and when Trump feels forced to do something to avoid people daring to question his toughness.

In regards to Trump's retaliatory strike, I'd point out that the Russians were informed in advance and the Syrians seemed to have prepared enough for it thanks to that in order to keep launching strikes from the attacked base. I would not be surprised if the Trump administration expected that result. So, I'd say Trump is not as reckless at some might assume, though there is certainly a chance that Trump will overstep on some future empty aggressive gesture and actually cause some serious shit. It also certainly shows that Trump is indeed willing to use military action for the sake of, via that action, yelling to the world that he's totally a strong machismo Putin-eque tough man and not weak/a pawn of others.

[Rasp]

The UN says the artificial famine created by coalition forces (Saudi/US/UK) is nearing the breaking point in Yemen. US/UK officials move to cover their own asses while continuing their active support of this work of genocide.

http://www.salon.com/2016/10/27/famine- ... roduction/
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?N ... PESnme1uY0

[Beastro]

Remains to be seen if he wants Assad gone, I'd rather say not.

The attack ultimately serves US interests as well as Trumps by making clear show that he is not Obama and will strike back quickly when provoked while also opening the gate for if Assad didn't do this, he can then say down the line when he plays thing more cautious that he's doing so because of the lessons learned over this and that he is not being weak like Obama.

It might have been Assad, it might not have been, what is important is turning this event to America's advantage keeping in what the known knowns and unknown knowns. Syria is a proxy for Russia and Iran and might have been used by them to gauge America's response to an act like this. Whether they did so or not, they now know what America's mettle in now regardless and that does its part to restrengthen US global hegemony in a way that blindly assuming it was ISIS and attacking them wouldn't.

As for what sort of plan I would use- I am not a military strategist, but I would think that any effort should ideally be made by an international coalition, with a commitment to a long-term rebuilding of Syria's infrastructure, with a plan for a transitional government that is neither Assad-like nor Islamist radicals, and only after a deal had been made with Russia to ensure that they we would not be blundering into World War III. I have absolutely no faith in Trump to do any of these things, and thus oppose the current course of action on practical grounds.

Because that is putting things into the hands of both the weak and those that lack the ruthlessness to maintain a hold on power both locally and internationally. Bowing to the UN or some coalition does not advance US interests, which atm are primarily to rebuild their hegemony over the world and keep would be challengers in their place. Locally, the pro-West faction is does not have the will to purge their country of opposition, and their entire platform is contrary to that. They are the moderates of any civil war or revolution, they are the first to be deposed of.

The only sides ruthless enough to seize and maintain power are Assad and ISIS, and the choice is clear as to who to the better of the two, even as a lesser evil. The problem is Assad is a client of Russia and Iran, allowing them to win but preventing those two countries interests from expanding as much as they could is a major objective in Syria, and part of that is preventing Assad from having an easy win. Russia is stretching itself to its limit, having it have to support Assad more means less of a threat in Eastern Europe through virtual attrition in much the same way that having Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union grind against one another was the best thing for the West looking long term into the Cold War.

I really hate to be defending or agreeing with Trump in any way, but Assad has got to go. He's proven on numerous occasions that he's criminal and illegitimate.

No, he needs to be punished and learn to know his place, being the lapdog of Russia and Iran, and that like a nice dog, his keepers better keep a tight leash on him.

The UN says the artificial famine created by coalition forces (Saudi/US/UK) is nearing the breaking point in Yemen. US/UK officials move to cover their own asses while continuing their active support of this work of genocide.

http://www.salon.com/2016/10/27/famine- ... roduction/
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?N ... PESnme1uY0

Good. If it breaks then Islamist resistance in the country will be severely hampered and allow the West friendly government to regain control over the hell hole.

Yes, in theory, US policy could help the Syrian people. But that theoretical scenario would require a new US government that rejected both Trumpist attitudes and long term foreign policy problems, like aiding dubious groups on the basis of that group currently opposing a current enemy and not thinking about the long term consequences of doing so. The US government would also have to be a lot more willing to listen to the Syrians and a lot less eager to act on it's own ideas of how things are and how they should be.

The US nor anyone involved is not in there out of charity, they are there to serve their national interest. In America's position that is to find a balance between that and the ideals they stand for, but breaking ones back for another country is not wise, especially when that country would be become a dependent upon the US for help doing thw dirty work.

The US already went down that road 10 years ago. It worked as much as it taxed the US, but then Obama came in and withdraw support. That is the big lesson of the Bush/Obama era combined: America is not a trust worthy ally. It is best if you work with them when they're looking out largely for themselves because if you are helpless without their aid then you will be betrayed by their schizophrenic election process.

It also certainly shows that Trump is indeed willing to use military action for the sake of, via that action, yelling to the world that he's totally a strong machismo Putin-eque tough man and not weak/a pawn of others.

You're over focusing on Trump. It is to show that America is as well after 8 years of weak vacillation and acting half heartedly when it's already too late. America global hegemony took a massive, massive hit under Obama and has resulted in many countries realigning themselves with
their challengers while others desperately look to America to get their shit together before they too have to.

Thailand is the case on the former which has been slowly buddying up to China while Vietnam is the case of the latter, a country that has their interests finally align with America's, and though still Communist, is begging to come under the US umbrella in order to do their part in checking Chinese expansion.

Those are examples from the more clear cut issue in the Western Pacific. When it comes to Russia and the Middle East it is not a dichotomy but pool of diarrhea with several interests conflicting and minute but minute sometimes finding themselves having things in common with their enemies. One can see that with Saudi Arabia's dubious actions, but ones that meet in places with both America, Israel and the West as a whole. Others, like Israel are walking more of a more finer line with their interests in Syria are aligning and conflicting with Assad and his masters on a case by case basis as they work to eliminate ISIS while keeping Iranian expansion in check in the Levant.

And that is only considering the state actors at play, not the various elements under the Islamist and "Free Syrian Army" umbrellas.

Edit: I'm also deeply concerned about the implications for how Trump is likely to handle future domestic political crises, because I suspect that this was done, at least in part, to throw off suspicion about his ties to Russia, and get a popularity boost.

And is yet another thing which has served his Administrations interests and helped sort out the mutual paranoia plaguing the US atm over international interests manipulating and influence US policy.

With that in mind it would have been foolish not to attack Assad.

Whatever one thinks of attacking Assad in theory, I really don't think that Donald Trump suddenly started caring about the lives of Middle Eastern civilians in the last couple of days.

Why would any US leader when the last 16 years of focusing on that at the expense of their own interest that has resulted in the unnecessary suffering in the region by demanding reliance upon them when the following administration then backs out on delivering it.

[The Romulan Republic]

You misattributed some of my quotes to Rasp.

[Rasp]

The UN says the artificial famine created by coalition forces (Saudi/US/UK) is nearing the breaking point in Yemen. US/UK officials move to cover their own asses while continuing their active support of this work of genocide.

http://www.salon.com/2016/10/27/famine- ... roduction/
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?N ... PESnme1uY0

Good. If it breaks then Islamist resistance in the country will be severely hampered and allow the West friendly government to regain control over the hell hole.

Even if the Saudis weren't also largely Islamic extremists (parts of their government helped to carry out the 9/11 attacks and most of the bombers were Saudis) Even then staving people - children many of them - who had nothing to do with anything to death is horrific you're celebrating the genocide of innocent people caught in the middle of a war most of them had no part in. That kind of disregard for innocent human life is monstrous without qualification.

Welcome to America where "lets not actively support starving children to death" is a far left position. Call me a bleeding heart if you want to I'd rather be that than someone who would ever celebrate something like this. I'd love to start positing pictures of them would you like to see that?

[Beastro]

Even if the Saudis weren't also largely Islamic extremists (parts of their government helped to carry out the 9/11 attacks and most of the bombers were Saudis) Even then staving people - children many of them - who had nothing to do with anything to death is horrific you're celebrating the genocide of innocent people caught in the middle of a war most of them had no part in. That kind of disregard for innocent human life is monstrous without qualification.

Welcome to america where "lets not actively support starving children to death" is a far left position.

Yes they did, but they have oil, which in today's world means power. We have to balance things with them and by God I hope we find a replacement for the only thing that makes them relevant in the world so they can go back to wandering the desert trading incense.

I am not celebrating that and you know it you emotionally ruled fool. The more that goes towards breaking the Islamists so that they are out of the way NOW rather than later. If the people of the country have to suffer in the meanwhile than that cannot be avoided because the alternative is worse and will produce more misery for them later if those thugs decisively take over the country.

It's the same situation any country at war deals with, and as Churchill said to Britain over the Blitz, “Learn to get used to it. Eels get used to skinning.”.

[Rasp]

Then why aren't we breaking the Saudis? they're just as Islamist if not more so then states like Syria but because they pretend to bend the knee it doesn't matter what tactics they use? no matter what the means are the ends are justified? where is the line if its not here?

The Saudis are not better the puppet goverment they are trying to install is not better. It's just replacing one extremist group with another again the Saudis are MORE than happy to drop planes on the US they've done it before and they almost certainly WILL try and do it again. We're not "breaking" the Islamists were putting them in charge and giving them free reign to do whatever they want.

We've spent the last decades trying to "Break" Islamists but every time we pull shit like this it helps ISIS recruit MORE followers like bloody clockwork. We're doing just fine on the oil we have and natural gas - not ideal solutions but there is nothing we NEED more oil for. Hell the last few year have had a huge spike in reserves and exports of US oil because we don't need it. at least not nearly as much as we're producing - there is a massive surplus right now. and as more replacements roll out as they have been oil is only going to get more and more irreverent.

http://www.macrotrends.net/2563/us-crud ... ical-chart
http://www.macrotrends.net/2565/us-crud ... ical-chart