• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Biden's Administration is now bombing Syria

Jason Harvestdancer

Contributor
Joined
Oct 23, 2005
Messages
7,833
Location
Lots of planets have a North
Basic Beliefs
Wiccan
It appears he is able to tell the difference between Libya and Syria.

In either case, this is a travesty. His advisors want him to be a war-time president, and they got their wish. More war. For a while the US wasn't bombing them, and now the US is bombing them again.

Isn't it lovely.
 
It appears he is able to tell the difference between Libya and Syria.

In either case, this is a travesty. His advisors want him to be a war-time president, and they got their wish. More war. For a while the US wasn't bombing them, and now the US is bombing them again.

Isn't it lovely.

article said:
in response to drone attacks by the militia against U.S. personnel and facilities in Iraq.

In other words, we responded to Iran shooting at us.
 
Someone used drones to attack US personnel in Iraq (which are still there why?) so the US blamed Iran and bombed Syria.

That makes perfect sense. Might as well bomb Libya as well.

So you want us to bomb Iran when the attack came from Syria?
 
Someone used drones to attack US personnel in Iraq (which are still there why?) so the US blamed Iran and bombed Syria.

That makes perfect sense. Might as well bomb Libya as well.

So you want us to bomb Iran when the attack came from Syria?

I would have no US personnel in Iraq.

Wait a second ... Loren said "we respond to Iran shooting at us" and you say the attack came from Syria. What we have are allegations of who did it and allegations of who backed them. That is more than enough justification for lethal force, isn't it?

America Is Back to Bombing Syria

Analysts agree another round of bombings won't accomplish anything in Syria. One child was reportedly killed and three civilians wounded in U.S. airstrikes near the Iraq-Syria border on Sunday, according to Syrian state news agency SANA. This news has been absent from most U.S. coverage of the bombings, which has emphasized that several alleged members of Iraqi militias backed by Iran were also killed or wounded.

"At least 5 Iran-backed Iraqi militia fighters were killed and several others were wounded in an attack by US warplanes," according to the U.K.-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

The director of the war monitoring group later said seven fighters were killed. He also suggested the strike won't actually affect the Iraqi militia presence in the area.

According to the Pentagon, the bombs targeted facilities used by two Iraqi militias with ties to Iran: Kataeb Hezbollah and Kataeb Sayyid al-Shuhada. "These facilities are…engaged in unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) attacks against U.S. personnel and facilities in Iraq," Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said in a statement.

Kirby described the strikes as self-defense, calling them "both necessary to address the threat and appropriately limited in scope. As a matter of domestic law, the President took this action pursuant to his Article II authority to protect U.S. personnel in Iraq."

But Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhemi called the attacks "a blatant and unacceptable violation of Iraqi sovereignty and Iraqi national security."

The militias that were bombed "technically are a part of the Iraqi security forces—the very security forces U.S. troops are supposedly training to fight an ISIS caliphate that doesn't exist anymore," noted Defense Priorities fellow and foreign policy analyst Daniel DePetris.
 
Trump increased both the bombing in Afghanistan and the drone assassination program.

Both Biden and Trump have horrendous foreign policies.

But Biden wouldn't lie about the danger of a deadly virus or the danger of global warming.

He was the better evil.

Too bad Democratic primary voters preferred Biden to Bernie.
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
I would have no US personnel in Iraq.

Doesn't really answer the question.

It does.

If you don't have them there as targets, they won't be shot at. That deprives the US of a pretext for retaliation, which is why the troops are still there.

Since they are already hitting us here at home do you expect our withdrawal from their tyranny to cause their attacks here to decrease? Fools dream.
 
The Mideast's politics and wars are complicated; I cannot hope to keep up. U.S. is strongly allied with at least two strong brutal regimes, Saudi and Israel, and has fought stupid wars. I do wish U.S. policies would improve.

The U.S. fought in Afghanistan for two decades, ostensibly to curtail the power of Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda and ISIS are weakened now, though the war never was very smart. The war cost lives and treasure ... and is ending with the Taliban returning to power. What a fiasco!

The Iraq War was even stupider. It had zero strategic purpose, destroyed at least a million lives, and cost trillions in treasure. Trillions added to the national debt with nothing to show for it. Not to mention a generation of American soldiers suffering PTSD.

However the War in Syria DOES have strategic purpose. Russia hopes to turn Syria into a vassal state and acquire a military presence in the Mid-East. This would not be good for the U.S. nor for Western Civilization more generally. Iran is effectively allied with Russia in this endeavor. If U.S. aggression can prevent or delay the fall of Syria to Russia and its allies, that would be good.

It may be difficult or impractical for the U.S. to act successfully in the Syrian conflict. Perhaps there is some clever non-military approach. But at least U.S. attacks against Russian surrogates (e.g. Iran and Hezbollah) in Syria have a real purpose, unlike the stupid Cheney-Rove wars started 18 years ago.
 
However the War in Syria DOES have strategic purpose. Russia hopes to turn Syria into a vassal state and acquire a military presence in the Mid-East. This would not be good for the U.S. nor for Western Civilization more generally. Iran is effectively allied with Russia in this endeavor. If U.S. aggression can prevent or delay the fall of Syria to Russia and its allies, that would be good.

I don't see how this retaliatory bombing prevents or delays Russia's control of Syria. It seems like that contest is already over, and the US lost.

It may be difficult or impractical for the U.S. to act successfully in the Syrian conflict. Perhaps there is some clever non-military approach. But at least U.S. attacks against Russian surrogates (e.g. Iran and Hezbollah) in Syria have a real purpose, unlike the stupid Cheney-Rove wars started 18 years ago.

What purpose do these attacks serve?
 
I would suppose reminding the proxies that we do have teeth and we can strike when and wherever we want. Whether that actually provides a tactical advantage by making proxies have to think more, I have no idea.
 
It would be nice if the Right would pick a fucking lane, and decide whether Biden (and the Left) is a namby-pamby, muslim-loving, Kumbaya-singing squishy snowflake for not having the balls to ever bomb Syria, or a reckless, reactionary, war-mongering threat to world peace for having the balls to bomb Syria.

Or, for simplicity, they could stick to the current script. Biden's a simpering candy-ass on days he doesn't bomb any muslims, and an unhinged, bloodthirsty killer on days when he does. That sounds about right for Team Trump.

(and, uhm, yes--I know he's gone. Not all of YOU seem to have gotten that memo.)
 
To be fair, the vast majority of congress are hawkish, regardless of their political alignment. They use different rhetoric to justify their aggressions, but at heart, both sides are globally aggressive.
 
To be fair, the vast majority of congress are hawkish, regardless of their political alignment. They use different rhetoric to justify their aggressions, but at heart, both sides are globally aggressive.

I think they are sheep.

They look at the other sheep to determine which way to move.

Not directed by inner principles.
 
It would be nice if the Right would pick a fucking lane

I can only assume this is directed at the OP, and though Jason and I seldom see eye to eye, I have to give him credit for sticking to his lane here. He has always been anti-war to a fault in this forum, this is not a case of his saying one thing when Trump was in office and another with Biden in office. So, credit where credit is due.
 
Back
Top Bottom