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

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

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.

I agree it's complicated - which means attacking Assad = helping ISIS is a far too simplistic equation.

[Fragile Bird]

And in the irony department:

In her first interview since her stunning presidential election defeat by Republican rival Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton on Thursday called for the United States to bomb Syrian air fields.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-people-hillary-clinton-idUSKBN179058?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_content=58e6f3d004d3013c216ae418&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook

Obviously Trump took this as permission to go ahead and bomb a Syrian airfield.

[James Arryn]

50 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.  

Thank God someone like the US is here to keep aggressive militaristic nations from going around bombing and invading other nations in the face of world opinion and international law. I mean, otherwise entire regions might be thrown into chaos and endemic warfare and people might even question the motivations of those aggressors. Thank God the US has no history of that kind of thing. And doubly a relief that a steady hand like Donald Trump is at the tiller. Praise Jesus.

I do object to your post not capitalizing Good, Right and Desriable when referencing these Glorious Bombings, though. Doesn't quite do them Justice.

[Fragile Bird]

12 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

I agree it's complicated - which means attacking Assad = helping ISIS is a far too simplistic equation.

Uhhhh....you know that the big question about Syria and Assad is, who will replace him, right?  And you know there are half a dozen militias fighting Assad, and the assumption is one of those leaders would end up being his successor?  And among the militias, two of the strongest are an ISIS backed group and an Al Qaeda backed group, and that ISIS and Al Qaeda are not allies? And the militia the US has been supporting is one associated with Al Qaeda?

[all swedes are racist]

20 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

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.

yes, if only we had some sort of... historic example... to help us predict how this might turn out... 

[all swedes are racist]

the obvious answer is to let YPG assume control of Syria and install pisspiggrandad as president

[DMC]

Just now, r'hllor's red lobster said:

yes, if only we had some sort of... historic example... to help us predict how this might turn out... 

LOL, glad someone got the reference.

2 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Thank God someone like the US is here to keep aggressive militaristic nations from going around bombing and invading other nations in the face of world opinion and international law. I mean, otherwise entire regions might be thrown into chaos and endemic warfare and people might even question the motivations of those aggressors. Thank God the US has no history of that kind of thing. And doubly a relief that a steady hand like Donald Trump is at the tiller. Praise Jesus.

I do object to your post not capitalizing Good, Right and Desriable when referencing these Glorious Bombings, though. Doesn't quite do them Justice.

Pretty boiler plate sarcasm.  Sure you don't wanna sprinkle in Pinochet, Pahlavi, or Noriega in there?

6 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Uhhhh....you know that the big question about Syria and Assad is, who will replace him, right?  And you know there are half a dozen militias fighting Assad, and the assumption is one of those leaders would end up being his successor?  And among the militias, two of the strongest are an ISIS backed group and an Al Qaeda backed group, and that ISIS and Al Qaeda are not allies? And the militia the US has been supporting is one associated with Al Qaeda?

The only thing I don't know is how a cruise missile strike on an airbase of Assad's is going to affect any of that.  And neither do you.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

34 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

 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.  

Eh, this is how it begins. Now we're militarily involved. I'd prefer that first step not be taken.

[James Arryn]

Just now, dmc515 said:

 

Pretty boiler plate sarcasm.  Sure you don't wanna sprinkle in Pinochet, Pahlavi, or Noriega in there?

No, why would I? Those are just meaningless names now that you've cleverly preempted me by using them first. Ah, well, I'm sure someone somewhere will find them of historic interest. Meanwhile I'll just capitulate entirely. I'm even coming 'round to the idea of the USA as arbiter of who does and who doesn't get to use WMD's. I mean, send a thief to catch a thief, AMIRIGHT? And with Hiroshma and Nagasaki in the rear view mirror, who's got more relevant experience? 

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Eh, this is how it begins. Now we're militarily involved. I'd prefer that first step not be taken.

I respect that position - and obviously I'd feel a lot better if Obama or even Hildog were doing this.  Syria's a powder keg, no doubt about it.  I just wonder if there was this much vehemence when we led the ouster of Gaddafi in Libya.

[all swedes are racist]

2 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

LOL, glad someone got the reference.

 

holy shit dude, no. i had to look it up, but i'd look to the fucking Muppet Show before the West Wing on how to conduct foreign affairs jayeffsea

[DMC]

1 minute ago, James Arryn said:

No, why would I? Those are just meaningless names now that you've cleverly preempted me by using them first. Ah, well, I'm sure someone somewhere will find them of historic interest. Meanwhile I'll just capitulate entirely. I'm even coming 'round to the idea of the USA as arbiter of who does and who doesn't get to use WMD's. I mean, send a thief to catch a thief, AMIRIGHT? And with Hiroshma and Nagasaki in the rear view mirror, who's got more relevant experience? 

I think my opinion on dropping the bomb would greatly surprise you.

[IamMe90]

1 hour 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.  

"[t]he most normatively desirable aspect of the U.S. military as the 'world police'"

okay, but what if the U.S. military being the "world police" is not normatively desirable? 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, r'hllor's red lobster said:

holy shit dude, no. i had to look it up, but i'd look to the fucking Muppet Show before the West Wing on how to conduct foreign affairs jayeffsea

The storyline in West Wing actually disagreed with Leo in that case, so yeah, I wasn't looking to it in any other way than I was reminded of the quote.

[James Arryn]

Just now, dmc515 said:

I think my opinion on dropping the bomb would greatly surprise you.

I mean, it's kind of in my line so I feel I've heard most of 'em...and spent a depressing couple of months trawling through the idcs/et al, reading what the people making the decisions at the time were actually thinking, but I'm game. Fire away.

WAIT! First, and for no particular reason let me state that I am not Muslim, and that I meant fire away in the metaphorical sense. 

[all swedes are racist]

bad news guys... Assad is still logged on, and is sending pictures of the pigpoopballs to a bunch of natsec dudes and they are really upset 

[all swedes are racist]

6 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

The storyline in West Wing actually disagreed with Leo in that case, so yeah, I wasn't looking to it in any other way than I was reminded of the quote.

ok, but the west wing is still incredibly dumb and it's just as bad an analog to real life as harry potter 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, IamMe90 said:

"[t]he most normatively desirable aspect of the U.S. military as the 'world police'"

okay, but what if the U.S. military being the "world police" is not normatively desirable? 

That would be an argument I'm very sympathetic to.  Problem is, we are and that's not gonna change.

2 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

WAIT! First, and for no particular reason let me state that I am not Muslim, and that I meant fire away in the metaphorical sense. 

Don't be an ass.  I love how this board treats me as far right sometimes...if only you could tell my students!  

Should maybe start a new thread for this, but the easiest thing for me to do is c + p quotes on dropping the bomb from key decision-makers (taking this from a post I made at another board years and years ago, then letting the quote function eliminate all formatting:

Quote

"I voiced to [Secretary of War Henry Stimson] my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of face."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, referring to the Potsdam Conference in his book Mandate for Change, 1963.

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender....My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages." And, "The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."
- Admiral William Leahy, considered the first unofficial Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to Presidents Roosevelt and Truman, in his book I Was There: The Personal Story of the Chief of Staff to Presidents Roosevelt and Truman Based on His Notes and Diaries Made at the Time, 1950.

"Even without the atomic bomb and the Russian entry into the war, Japan would have surrendered in two weeks."
- General Curtis LeMay, in charge of the all Air Force strategic air operations against Japan at the time and hardly one averse to bombing enemy territories.

"On July 20, 1945, under instructions from Washington, I went to the Potsdam Conference and reported there to Secretary Stimson on what I had learned from Tokyo--they desired to surrender if they could retain the Emperor and the constitution as a basis for maintaining discipline and order in Japan after the devastating news of surrender became known to the Japanese people."
- Allen Dulles, OSS official and later the first civilian Director of the CIA in his book The Secret Surrender: The Classic Insider's Account of the Secret Plot to Surrender Northern Italy During WWII, 1966. Emperor Hirohito was retained when the Japanese surrendered, by the way.

"The entry of the Soviet Union into the war would finally convince the Japanese of the inevitability of complete defeat."
- A US War Department Report on June 30, 1945. The Soviet Union broke their neutrality pact and declared war on Japan on August 9, the same day the second bomb dropped on Nagasaki.

"We brought them down to an abject surrender through accelerated sinking of their merchant marine and hunger alone, and when we didnt need to do it, and we knew we didnt need to do it, and they knew we knew we didnt need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs."
- Brigadier General Carter Clark, the intelligence officer in charge of preparing intercepted Japanese cables known as the MAGIC summaries.

Clearly, compunction about dropping the bombs began far before the arrival of Bill Clinton. Finally, to show this viewpoint at least used to have supporters on both sides of the aisle, a quote from a 1959 article in the newly formed National Review by Medford Evans, one of the founders of the conservative John Birch Society:

"The indefensibility of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima is becoming part of the national conservative creed."

 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, r'hllor's red lobster said:

ok, but the west wing is still incredibly dumb and it's just as bad an analog to real life as harry potter 

I was just giving attribution to a quote I was going to say anyway because I love the character, chill out.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, r'hllor's red lobster said:

ok, but the west wing is still incredibly dumb and it's just as bad an analog to real life as harry potter 

YOU TAKE THAT BACK OR I WILL SMACK YOU WITH MY NIMBUS 2000!