US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Platapus

That's great....if the majority of Americans really understand what happened and are not just basing their opinions from reading only US viewpoints.

So what happened? As in, what is your take on this story?

Originally Posted by Platapus

That's great....if the majority of Americans really understand what happened and are not just basing their opinions from reading only US viewpoints.

This!

[August]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

The destruction of Assad's chemical arsenals was done by the specialist UN agency. We promised that Assad would let said agency do their work and we delivered on that promise.

Well apparently Assad didn't let them do their work or these attacks would not still be happening so what does that do to your promises?

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by August

Well apparently Assad didn't let them do their work or these attacks would not still be happening so what does that do to your promises?

You imply that both the attacks were carried over by Assad and that the UN efforts, supervised by the US ofcourse, have failed. But then we were not asked to disarm Assad ourselves, as we would not be trusted to do such a thing, nor did we promise it. And we delivered on what we did promise, you can read the old testimonies by the UN and US.

Yet did both of those thing happen? Did both UN (and US) fail and Assad carry out the attacks, makes me wonder if the simpler hypothesis would be closer to the truth.

Not that the US failure in this scenario would sadden you, after all it was under Dem administration, wasnt it?

p.s. my personal view is that the whole story is very fishy.

[August]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

You imply that both the attacks were carried over by Assad and that the UN efforts, supervised by the US ofcourse, have failed.

One would not necessarily be tied to the other. Assad could easily have had new chemweps provided to them later, perhaps by their close allies Russia and/or Iran. How's that for an implication?

But i'm curious, have you any proof that it was somebody else that did this? I mean absent some compelling evidence to the contrary i'm gonna have to go with the dictator that had them in his arsenal, had used them against civilians before, has the means to deliver them, the motive for doing so and a foreign military power protecting him.

[Catfish]

We have had all kinds of articles posted here that said any other side (from terrorist groups, to UN troops, to aliens ahem) could be as well held responsible for the poison gas attack.
Assad seemed unlikely at first glance, but not when you look closer (see Pournelle's article I posted). If it was Assad, the US strike makes sense.
We can only take the word from the US government that they really know who did it, or better the secret services connected to this. We just have to hope they do not screw up because frankly, what can we really know if we just see the outside view, from the media, and desinformation from all sides.

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by August

One would not necessarily be tied to the other. Assad could easily have had new chemweps provided to them later, perhaps by their close allies Russia and/or Iran. How's that for an implication?

But i'm curious, have you any proof that it was somebody else that did this? I mean absent some compelling evidence to the contrary i'm gonna have to go with the dictator that had them in his arsenal, had used them against civilians before, has the means to deliver them, the motive for doing so and a foreign military power protecting him.

Ahh, yet is there evidence of such transfer?

I don't need proof that some one else did it, I need proof that some one specific did it, for example Assad.

However, in good faith, to answer your question, if I had to assighn blame I would be more inclined to believe that rebels grossly misreported the attacks if did not carry out the attacks themselves. Not only is this hypothesis simpler and thus passes Okam razor test, but at the same time it is fairly obvious if you look into the rebel reporting that the western narrative is exclusively built around.
I belive I have posted the analasys of that reporting above in the easy to understand meme form.

But I guess more complex hypothesis, with demonised Assad acting against his interests and some how procuring new checmical weapons, are sometimes more convenient if you want to justify acts of agression. Quick question - is the source for Assad acquiring new chemical weapons the same as for Sadam?

[ikalugin]

If it was Assad, the US strike makes sense.

The US strike is weird, because on political level it had the opposite effect - Assad now has more support from his allies and on military level it had little effect even if we go with the US reported strike results.

[August]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

The US strike is weird, because on political level it had the opposite effect - Assad now has more support from his allies and on military level it had little effect even if we go with the US reported strike results.

Oh gee now we gone and done it, we made the Russians, Hezbollah and Iranians go from complete support for an evil dictator to beyond complete.

Thing is Assad has had the support of his allies all along and would continue to have it regardless of what he does. I don't think Russia cares one little bit that civilians are being targeted. The only thing that concerns them is keeping their med base and to that end they would happily see the death of every civilian in the rebel held areas. Even help it happen. As for Iran, this is a country that stones people to death in the street. Anyone that those snakes support is probably somebody we should oppose anyways.

[ikalugin]

What did US seek to achieve with the strikes then?

[August]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

What did US seek to achieve with the strikes then?

I don't know. I gave up my security clearance when I left the Army. Maybe it was to send a message that there is a new sheriff in town. Maybe it was meant to convince the Chinese they should help reign in Kim Jong. Maybe it was just the natural result of stepping over Obamas red line and the next time it happens we'll hit them even harder.

How do you know that the strike increased support among Syrias allies?

[vienna]

There could be a preview of what the 2018 Mid-Terms could be like coming soon:

http://www.npr.org/2017/04/11/523380...-for-gop-trump




<O>

[August]

Interesting article. Very partisan but well written. Emphasis added by me.

Is Donald Trump a student of Charles Maurice de Talleyrand? Some of Trump’s recent actions suggest that he is, at least intuitively. I am thinking in particular of Talleyrand’s observation that “non-intervention is a metaphysical idea, indistinguishable in practice from intervention.” The question is not whether a state like America is part of the process. It is, by definition. The question is how effective a role it will play. Thursday night, Donald Trump demonstrated his grasp of that truth.


In August 2012, Barack Obama had some stern words for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. “We have been very clear to the Assad regime,” Obama said, “that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus.”
A year later, Assad launched a gas attack against parts of a suburb of Damascus. It killed some 1,500 civilians, including more than 400 children. As Politico reported, “Horrific video footage showing people with twisted bodies sprawled on hospital floors, some twitching and foaming at the mouth after being exposed to sarin gas” went viral on the internet.
The “red line” had certainly been crossed. Outrage. Consternation. Calls for action.


Obama did . . . nothing.


John Kerry and Susan Rice later took credit for removing “100 percent” of Syria’s chemical weapons without firing a shot.


Except that they left some of the toxic stuff behind.


Earlier last week, Assad’s forces conducted another sarin gas attack against rebel forces in Syria. This left some 70 people dead, “including children, . . . some writhing, choking, gasping or foaming at the mouth.”
Sixty-three hours later, around the time that Donald Trump was having dinner with President Xi Jinping of China at Mar-a-Lago, two US destroyers in the Eastern Mediterranean fired fifty-nine Tomahawk cruise missiles at Syria’s Shayrat air base, from where the deadly gas attack originated. The carefully targeted attack destroyed aircraft, air defense control systems, fuel and ammunition storage facilities, and workshops. Barracks and facilities suspected of housing more chemical weapons were deliberately spared.


Naturally, the chattering class erupted like a flock of grackles.


Much of the bird song was familiar. Holding down the paranoid conspiracy corner, MSNBC Lawrence O’Donnell wondered whether Vladimir Putin had masterminded the chemical attack so that Trump could “look good by striking Syria.” Am I alone in thinking that the strange sound you hear above O’Donnell’s insane chirping is the theme from the Twilight Zone? (Confession: I do not watch MSNBC and have only recently become aware of O’Donnell’s existence. He clearly needs help.)


There were all the usual questions that arise when the US President unexpectedly uses military force. Chief among those questions: Was Trump’s authorized to order the strike without first obtaining the approval of Congress? Ted Cruz summed up the answer: Yes. In our system, the power to declare war is vested in Congress. But it is the Commander in Chief’s prerogative to take action to defend the country and to respond to exigent circumstances that threaten national security. The deployment and use of weapons of mass destructive constitutes such a threat. Ergo, etc.
There was a good dealing of novel chirping, too. My unofficial poll suggests that Trump’s action against Syria met with wide approval among the American people. It even earned plaudits from many anti-Trump Republicans, especially in the neo-conservative fraternity. Ralph Peters, for example, formerly a foaming critic of Trump, sang his praises. “The United States is back. There are, indeed, red lines. And the enemies of humanity cross those lines at their peril.”


There was a lot more where that came from.


I hesitate to intrude upon the novel warm glow of good feeling from that corridor of previously implacable disgruntlement. Nevertheless, that particular chirping chorus is bound to be disappointed. Trump’s attack on Syria was not the answer to that fabled call for the 1980s to send back its foreign policy. It was a carefully calculated response—to an atrocity, first of all, but also to a number of surrounding contingencies, some of which I’ll come to in a moment.


If the neo-conservative jubilation ought to be tempered, so should the alarm that coruscated through some precincts of the Trump faithful. Donald Trump campaigned on an America First platform that made avoiding foreign entanglements its centerpiece. Indeed he did. But as Chris Buskirk has noted on this site (and as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has corroborated), the strike against Syria did not in any way gainsay that ambition. There are no signs that the nation-building moral imperialism of the Bush era is making a comeback.


What is making a comeback, however, is the peace-through-strength realism that Trump repeatedly championed during his candidacy and first weeks of his presidency. And this brings me to those surrounding contingencies I mentioned.


As many observers have noted, the attack on Shayrat air base was directed not only at Bashar al-Assad. We can say with high confidence that it was intended to garner the attention of several other people. President Xi Jinping, for example. There he was, the guest of President Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago, tucking into the Dover sole and New York strip steak. By the time he got to the chocolate cake, the attack was over. As the dinner broke up, Trump took President Xi aside and quickly informed him about the strike. Response? Our talks were productive and cordial.

Then there is Vladimir Putin. The Trump-colluded-with-the-Russians-to-win-the-election meme was never anything but preposterous. I think Democratic lawmakers have always known that, even if it has escaped the ken of hysterical fantasists like Lawrence O’Donnell. They persisted, I conjecture, because they thought it a useful distraction. The Susan Rice implosion pretty much put paid to that, I’d wager, and the strike against Syria rendered it utterly surreal. The result? Bluster from Russia followed by . . . crickets. “Russia Warns of Serious Consequences from U.S. Strike in Syria,” screamed a Reuters headline. You betcha. But Rex Tillerson is still scheduled to go to Moscow next week. Good timing. For one very serious consequence is that Russia now knows that this President of the United States is not planning to “lead from behind” as did his predecessor. Look for a marked adjustment in their posture.


Then there is the wide, wide world beyond Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. That clickety-clack-clack-clack sound you hear are the beads of the great foreign policy abacus recalculating its estimation of Donald Trump. He is not one of them, not part of the international administrative nomenklatura. But he is the most powerful man in the world and he means business. Who knew?


An interesting question is whether the bulbous Kim Jong-un has absorbed the memo. Since Kim inhabits a paranoid empyrean almost as surreal as the one occupied by Lawrence O’Donnell, it is hard to say with certainty. I hope so. The Carl Vinson Strike Group is steaming toward the Korean peninsula as I write and will be able to repeat the message in capital letters if necessary. Perhaps, if all goes well, President Xi will take a moment to whisper it in Kim’s ear as well.

https://amgreatness.com/2017/04/10/t...america-alone/

[ikalugin]

The bit about the Chinese reminds me about the time when Truman told Stalin about the bomb.

But yea, I see the core points of their narrative:
- democrats are idiots who failed to disarm Assad.
- Assad eats babies.
- Trump looks strong for using force, both at home and abroad.

Inconsistency can be viewed a sighn of weakness.

[vienna]

[QUOTE...Response? Our talks were productive and cordial. ...[/QUOTE]

In the realms of diplomacy and politics, the phrase "productive and cordial" means nothing was done or decided upon, something along the lines of "frank and honest" being code talk for neither side conceding on an issue...



<O>