US Politics: He's Trump, he's Trump, he's Trump, he's in my head

[Fragile Bird]

9 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

The answer to that is easy:  don't go to Congress first.  He's the only president who bothered (other than Ford) since WWII.

The answer wasn't don't go to Congress, the answer was be a Republican.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Just because it's precedent doesn't mean it's good or right. I suppose you could argue Obama did that knowing Congress would stay his hand, which may have been what he actually wanted.

Sending a proportional response when states use chemical or biological weapons on their own people is most certainly good, right, and the most normatively desirable aspect of the U.S. military as the "world police" - especially after you've drawn a line in the sand on the subject specifically with that regime.  Congress abdicated its war powers responsibility a very long time ago, tried to regain it with the 73 WPR, then never bothered enforcing that either - other than some mumbles after Obama and Libya.  

[Altherion]

16 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

I'm leaving town for a conference in about 8 hours so I'll just drop this in for the weekend...

I agree whole-heartedly with Trump bombing Syria.  Strikes on military targets in response to chemical attacks is what superpowers are supposed to do.  Was always disappointed Obama pussed out on that.  This has McMaster written all over it as SOP for the U.S. Military, glad he wrested control of the NSC.

It would make sense if we were really sure that it was Assad who launched the gas attack, but this is barely plausible. First, he has no need to do this -- he's already winning with the help of the Russians. Second, it is extremely high-profile (including even the impact on children). Third, this is practically the one and only thing he could have done to draw the West back into the situation in opposition to him. Why would Assad do it? Either he has suddenly developed a death wish or this is a false flag operation.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Sending a proportional response when states use chemical or biological weapons on their own people is most certainly good, right, and the most normatively desirable aspect of the U.S. military as the "world police" - especially after you've drawn a line in the sand on the subject specifically with that regime.  Congress abdicated its war powers responsibility a very long time ago, tried to regain it with the 73 WPR, then never bothered enforcing that either - other than some mumbles after Obama and Libya.  

No, I was referring to a President not going to Congress before committing an act of war. 

/Not on board with the "World Police" doctrine either. Especially not in the Middle East given our recent track record there.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

The answer wasn't don't go to Congress, the answer was be a Republican.

Obama reneged on the red line to get Assad (and Putin) to agree to allow inspectors in to remove his chemical arsenal.  Was not a fan of that deal then or now.  Targeted military strikes are never going to have huge political consequences, regardless of party - and Obama had no more elections to run for at the time.

[The Anti-Targ]

13 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

I'm leaving town for a conference in about 8 hours so I'll just drop this in for the weekend...

I agree whole-heartedly with Trump bombing Syria.  Strikes on military targets in response to chemical attacks is what superpowers are supposed to do.  Was always disappointed Obama pussed out on that.  This has McMaster written all over it as SOP for the U.S. Military, glad he wrested control of the NSC.

Such a short-sighted and naive thing to say. Unless there is a good endgame in mind this action was pointless and ineffectual at best, counterproductive at worst.

This is putting the US up as the world's morality police. Thanks, but no thanks, I don't want the US to be the world's morality police. People in the US argue that the federal govt isn't allowed to tell states how to manage public bathroom access, and these are states that come under the legal jurisdiction of the US constitution.

Unless a UN sanction authorises military action against another country unilateral military strikes should not be happening.

[Kalbear]

I am wondering what the actual legal grounds for this strike are, especially given that it explicitly did not take out the chemical munitions.

• You can't argue that it was to stop an imminent threat for that reason.
• It certainly doesn't fall under the AUMF in any reasonable reading of that.
• It isn't a direct threat to current US forces in the area in any way, either.

I don't think it'll matter, honestly; when Pelosi comes out and says 'yeah, that's fine' chances are no one is going to bat an eye about it. But what is the actual legal standing to launch an attack on another country that the US is not at war or even in open conflict with?

[Fragile Bird]

2 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Obama reneged on the red line to get Assad (and Putin) to agree to allow inspectors in to remove his chemical arsenal.  Was not a fan of that deal then or now.  Targeted military strikes are never going to have huge political consequences, regardless of party - and Obama had no more elections to run for at the time.

Trump sent out more than 30 tweets before being elected warning Obama not to do anything in Syria.

Trump didn't give a flying fuck about dead children lying in the street of Syria. Not. A. Single. Flying. Fuck. The blood of children could flow down the streets of Aleppo and he didn't give a shit.

But people saying, Oh look, he doesn't care about Assad and look what happened and all of a sudden he wasn't going to wear it.

Too bad Obama doesn't send out tweets telling Trump to stay the fuck out of Syria.

[Kalbear]

Also, apparently Assad now knows what line he shouldn't cross in order to be mildly peeved, and instead should happily encourage the helicopter barrel bombs and Russian WP attacks that have been going on for the last couple of years, because at least they're not chemicals.

[Fragile Bird]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

I am wondering what the actual legal grounds for this strike are, especially given that it explicitly did not take out the chemical munitions.

• You can't argue that it was to stop an imminent threat for that reason.
• It certainly doesn't fall under the AUMF in any reasonable reading of that.
• It isn't a direct threat to current US forces in the area in any way, either.

I don't think it'll matter, honestly; when Pelosi comes out and says 'yeah, that's fine' chances are no one is going to bat an eye about it. But what is the actual legal standing to launch an attack on another country that the US is not at war or even in open conflict with?

Well, that's easy. It's in the strategic interest of the safety of the USA not have a country around that would use chemical warfare. It could be used against the US. Maybe Korea would send a missile armed not with a nuclear bomb but with some hideous disease.

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Altherion said:

It would make sense if we were really sure that it was Assad who launched the gas attack, but this is barely plausible. 

We have pretty much constant surveillance on the airbase that the chemical attack emanated from and we just attacked.  I'm not one for conspiracy theories.

8 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

No, I was referring to a President not going to Congress before committing an act of war. 

Again, I refer you to Congress abdicating its responsibility in this regard a long time ago.  Moreover, there's a huge difference between dropping cruise missiles and boots on the ground.

6 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Such a short-sighted and naive thing to say. Unless there is a good endgame in mind this action was pointless and ineffectual at best, counterproductive at worst.

This is putting the US up as the world's morality police. Thanks, but no thanks, I don't want the US to be the world's morality police. People in the US argue that the federal govt isn't allowed to tell states how to manage public bathroom access, and these are states that come under the legal jurisdiction of the US constitution.

Unless a UN sanction authorises military action against another country unilateral military strikes should not be happening.

Yeah I prefer to live in the real world where the UN does jack shit and being the world "morality police" in terms of striking an a key military target used to carry out chemical attacks is actually one good thing we can do.  

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Just now, dmc515 said:

Again, I refer you to Congress abdicating its responsibility in this regard a long time ago.  Moreover, there's a huge difference between dropping cruise missiles and boots on the ground.

Again, why is that good precedent? Just because no one since Ford has bothered to do it?

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Trump sent out more than 30 tweets before being elected warning Obama not to do anything in Syria.

Trump didn't give a flying fuck about dead children lying in the street of Syria. Not. A. Single. Flying. Fuck. The blood of children could flow down the streets of Aleppo and he didn't give a shit.

But people saying, Oh look, he doesn't care about Assad and look what happened and all of a sudden he wasn't going to wear it.

Too bad Obama doesn't send out tweets telling Trump to stay the fuck out of Syria.

Agreeing with this action and defending Trump in any way, shape, or form are two very different things.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Fragile Bird said:

Well, that's easy. It's in the strategic interest of the safety of the USA not have a country around that would use chemical warfare. It could be used against the US. Maybe Korea would send a missile armed not with a nuclear bomb but with some hideous disease.

But again - we haven't stopped said country from doing that. At all. By our own admittance, we purposely didn't target a specific area that was thought to have Sarin gas. So we haven't gotten rid of the ability to use chemical weapons, we've just gotten rid of one of several airfields.

If we had done that, that'd be a good argument and a reasonable one - similar to the airstrikes on Iran that were planned. But we didn't do that. Instead, we attacked a military target which had launched the attack, but isn't really vital  to doing so, in the hopes that Assad et al will think again about doing it.

Note that it doesn't actually stop him from doing it. It doesn't reduce their capability to do so, nor does it remove the actual weapons. It hopes that he will see it as a stern warning. And who knows, maybe it will. But it's hard to say that the US has any kind of actual grounds for action here on a legal basis. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, dmc515 said:

Yeah I prefer to live in the real world where the UN does jack shit and being the world "morality police" in terms of striking an a key military target used to carry out chemical attacks is actually one good thing we can do.  

What do we get out of this hyper-interventionist policy? Outside of jobs in the Defense Industry?

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

What do we get out of this hyper-interventionist policy? Outside of jobs in the Defense Industry?

How is dropping cruise missiles on a clear military target after a chemical attack a "hyper-interventionist" policy?  Granted, I'll give you it helps the defense industry since the military needs to restock.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, dmc515 said:

How is dropping cruise missiles on a clear military target after a chemical attack a "hyper-interventionist" policy?  Granted, I'll give you it helps the defense industry since the military needs to restock.

How is it anything but? What business do we have in Syria? Are you suggesting this latest chemical attack is somehow more egregious than anything else that has been going on over there for the past 4 and a half years? Once again we are sticking our noses into business that is not our own. That has worked out so well for us for almost 2 decades now.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

How is it anything but? What business do we have in Syria? Are you suggesting this latest chemical attack is somehow more egregious than anything else that has been going on over there for the past 4 and a half years? Once again we are sticking our noses into business that is not our own. That has worked out so well for us for almost 2 decades now.

Prohibition on the use of chemical and biological weapons has precedent in the international community that predates the Geneva Conventions.  If you're going to be a superpower, there's nothing more simple than backing that up.  As for consequences, you're right - nobody knows what the fuck to do with Syria.  As Leo McGarry said, "we don't always know how it ends."  But targeted strikes as a proportional response to a chemical attack is just about the very definition of smart power.  Am I scared it's Trump that's doing this, and what that means for the future?  Sure.  But I'm not going to disagree with an action I'd otherwise agree with just because of that douchebag.

[all swedes are racist]

lol, Jesus Christ... yaknow, considering the common view on policing and violence here, I'm not at all convinced by the "usa as the world cop" argument. Assad the lawless thug vs KSAs responsible gun owners? why the fuck is gas where we draw the line when a good fraction of a million of people have been killed by regular guns and bullets? or when our seals are killing kids in yemen for no reason?

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/carlbeijer/status/850189415548727296

anyway, this thoroughly planned and well thought out action may have some adverse effects... (ETA: waiting for some confirming reports, but generally trust rania khalek)

[Fragile Bird]

18 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

We have pretty much constant surveillance on the airbase that the chemical attack emanated from and we just attacked.  I'm not one for conspiracy theories.

Again, I refer you to Congress abdicating its responsibility in this regard a long time ago.  Moreover, there's a huge difference between dropping cruise missiles and boots on the ground.

Yeah I prefer to live in the real world where the UN does jack shit and being the world "morality police" in terms of striking an a key military target used to carry out chemical attacks is actually one good thing we can do.  

Look, bombing the airport feels morally right. You said you were happy it was done.

The whole point about NOT attacking Syria, the whole point about Obama going to Congress, was about the fact that if you attack Assad, you help ISIS. That is the stark reality of the situation. There are some very strange bedfellows in this civil war. The US has essentially been on the same side as Assad, Russia and Iran fighting ISIS, but against Syria, Russia and Iran by trying to help rebels against Assad. It's complicated is the grossest understatement in the world.