Biden's Administration is now bombing Syria

[funinspace]

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.

Since...since...we have been mucking around in the ME since WWII, somewhat supplanting European machinations from before WWII, we have continually made ourselves a target for attacks by hostile groups from the ME.

 

[funinspace]

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.

This last paragraph is the essence of most of the necon arguments going back to Vietnam and before. Russia has had close ties to the Syrian leaders since at least 1971 when they were granted a Naval base in Tartus. Evidently, you are right in that you didn't keep up, as such a Russian-Syrian association happened decades ago...

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.

So was the creation of the Frankensteinian monster called ISIS worth this strategy, as cobbled together by the agencies of SA (and their piglets), Turkey, and the US?

 

[Gun Nut]

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.

How much our military's actions against a perceived threat actor makes sense to a rando on the internet is important to who and why?

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

On this point, you and I agree.

 

[Gun Nut]

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.

victim blaming

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

victim blaming

Kind of painting the aggressor as a victim, aren't you?

 

[Gun Nut]

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.

victim blaming

Kind of painting the aggressor as a victim, aren't you?

I don't actually know if the victim of the drone attack was actually the agresser of a larger conflict, under which the drone pilot was a victim... but was that drone pilot's victimhood undermined by their prior aggression that might have started the larger conflict, which itself arose from.....?

How far back do we go to assign victimhood? the war of the neanderthals versus the homosapiens?

 

[Emily Lake]

Kind of painting the aggressor as a victim, aren't you?

I don't actually know if the victim of the drone attack was actually the agresser of a larger conflict, under which the drone pilot was a victim... but was that drone pilot's victimhood undermined by their prior aggression that might have started the larger conflict, which itself arose from.....?

How far back do we go to assign victimhood? the war of the neanderthals versus the homosapiens?

I'm content with somewhere around the time that we moved into someone else's country and set up shop as if we had a right to be there.

 

[Gun Nut]

Kind of painting the aggressor as a victim, aren't you?

I don't actually know if the victim of the drone attack was actually the agresser of a larger conflict, under which the drone pilot was a victim... but was that drone pilot's victimhood undermined by their prior aggression that might have started the larger conflict, which itself arose from.....?

How far back do we go to assign victimhood? the war of the neanderthals versus the homosapiens?

I'm content with somewhere around the time that we moved into someone else's country and set up shop as if we had a right to be there.

So your root issue is with the displacement of the Native Americans during the colonization of the Americas, and then us staying here?

 

[Politesse]

I'm content with somewhere around the time that we moved into someone else's country and set up shop as if we had a right to be there.

So your root issue is with the displacement of the Native Americans during the colonization of the Americas, and then us staying here?

"Displacement"? That's a funny way to describe the mass murder and enslavement of millions of people.

We should consider all of these situations, the present military operation included, to be criminal in character and transparently opposed to the supposedly democratic and libertarian values we claim to support as a nation.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm content with somewhere around the time that we moved into someone else's country and set up shop as if we had a right to be there.

So your root issue is with the displacement of the Native Americans during the colonization of the Americas, and then us staying here?

That too.


I think it's kind of silly to lump everything together as if there's no difference at all, but whatever floats your boat I guess. At the end of the day, the vast majority of our presence in the middle east was based on falsehoods, and has been perpetuated for very little rational reason. If we were to leave, it could feasibly have some localized negative effects, certainly... but on the whole I also think it would be the best chance for stabilization in the region.

Additionally, it's nor our job to stabilize the region. It's not our region, we don't live there. We're not in charge of the whole world.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

Syria is pretty much an Iranian client state. Iran carries out it's wars through client states.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It is quite possible that by now the perpetrator of that attack has been clearly identified. At the time of retaliation that was not so.

"Someone attacked us! Quick, let's bomb Syria."

 

[ZiprHead]

It is quite possible that by now the perpetrator of that attack has been clearly identified. At the time of retaliation that was not so.

"Someone attacked us! Quick, let's bomb Syria."

Do you have some facts to back up this fantasy?

 

[J842P]

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.

victim blaming

The US is not the victim in Iraq. The US is the criminal.

 

[J842P]

Kind of painting the aggressor as a victim, aren't you?

I don't actually know if the victim of the drone attack was actually the agresser of a larger conflict, under which the drone pilot was a victim... but was that drone pilot's victimhood undermined by their prior aggression that might have started the larger conflict, which itself arose from.....?

How far back do we go to assign victimhood? the war of the neanderthals versus the homosapiens?

Seems reasonable to go as far back as the invasion, since that is the direct cause of the status quo.

 

[J842P]

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?

Syria is pretty much an Iranian client state. Iran carries out it's wars through client states.

So what? Iraq is an American client state. Much more so than Syria is to Iran, and Iran is acting as any rational actor might act in the face of overwhelming US aggression and very real threats of invasion (which would be yet another crime against humanity perpetrated by the US in the region).

 

[barbos]

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.

This last paragraph is the essence of most of the necon arguments going back to Vietnam and before. Russia has had close ties to the Syrian leaders since at least 1971 when they were granted a Naval base in Tartus. Evidently, you are right in that you didn't keep up, as such a Russian-Syrian association happened decades ago...

US neocons did not get the "We won the Cold war" memo, so they keep on fighting. And a lot of soviet allied regimes did not get the memo about US not getting their own memo. So they have remained a target for regime change.

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.

So was the creation of the Frankensteinian monster called ISIS worth this strategy, as cobbled together by the agencies of SA (and their piglets), Turkey, and the US?

Islamic "Freedom" fighters were created by US too.

 

[J842P]

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.

No. The US's aggressive stance against the Russians is pure insanity -- indeed, it was during the Cold War as well. The idea that a Syrian-Russian relationship is "not good for Western Civilization" is, quite frankly, deranged and emblematic of the typical American irrationality vis a vis Russia and it's found practically in any American raised before the year 1990 or so. The propaganda was systematic.

 

[Derec]

Bernie would have crushed Trump.

In Vermont. Overall, he'd have lost.

Fucking senile Joe Biden beat Trump badly.

That's because he ran as a moderate. Emphasis on "ran". He is actually governing like a fucking honorary Squad member, at least on domestic policies.