Could Trump put an end to America's failed policy of war?

[Jimmy Higgins]

Report: U.S. Forces Killed More Than 200 Russian Fighters in Syria Attack

And they said the cold war was over.

It is. It'll be interesting to find out what the US brass knew prior to the counter attack.

Meanwhile I heard Trump is willing to nuke NYC in reprisal, Failsafe style.

 

[funinspace]

It is. This is just a tepid piss poor war

Besides it is comical to see our generals with so many stars up their asses quake in fear of those Ruskies with 1/10 of their budget. Ruskies must be the size of King Kong; or our general are made of Pee Wee Herman stuffing; of course they also could be lying sacks of shit...

Well, their military budget is small compared to the U.S., but it's the nukes that matter. War between the U.S. and Russia is, for all non-end of the world purposes, impossible. It doesn't matter how many tanks or carrier groups you have, just 20 or so 1 megaton warheads is the end of the United States (and Russia too).

So the concern isn't a conventional war. The U.S. would kick the living shit out of Russia in that scenario ten times over. But even the start of such a war would likely trigger nuclear holocaust. So for that reason, Russia has to be treated with great care.

Of course the US has concerns/interests in not initiated the MAD scenario with Russia as we have approximate warhead parity. China is a MAD runner up.... However, that has little too nothing to do with our generals regularly sniveling about the Yuge threats posed by Russia and China, when we massively outspend both of them. The sniveling is about enlarging their already obscenely over-sized phallic.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is. This is just a tepid piss poor war

Besides it is comical to see our generals with so many stars up their asses quake in fear of those Ruskies with 1/10 of their budget. Ruskies must be the size of King Kong; or our general are made of Pee Wee Herman stuffing; of course they also could be lying sacks of shit...

Well, their military budget is small compared to the U.S., but it's the nukes that matter. War between the U.S. and Russia is, for all non-end of the world purposes, impossible. It doesn't matter how many tanks or carrier groups you have, just 20 or so 1 megaton warheads is the end of the United States (and Russia too).

So the concern isn't a conventional war. The U.S. would kick the living shit out of Russia in that scenario ten times over. But even the start of such a war would likely trigger nuclear holocaust. So for that reason, Russia has to be treated with great care.

Exactly. Neither will win. Thus neither side should fire upon the other.

The Russians attacked, they were in the wrong.

 

[barbos]

It is. This is just a tepid piss poor war

Besides it is comical to see our generals with so many stars up their asses quake in fear of those Ruskies with 1/10 of their budget. Ruskies must be the size of King Kong; or our general are made of Pee Wee Herman stuffing; of course they also could be lying sacks of shit...

Well, their military budget is small compared to the U.S., but it's the nukes that matter. War between the U.S. and Russia is, for all non-end of the world purposes, impossible. It doesn't matter how many tanks or carrier groups you have, just 20 or so 1 megaton warheads is the end of the United States (and Russia too).

So the concern isn't a conventional war. The U.S. would kick the living shit out of Russia in that scenario ten times over. But even the start of such a war would likely trigger nuclear holocaust. So for that reason, Russia has to be treated with great care.

Exactly. Neither will win. Thus neither side should fire upon the other.

The Russians russian mercenaries who have nothing to do with russian government attacked, they were in the wrong.

Fixed for you. Also it seems that that attack has little to do with Assad's government, bunch of Syrian "oligarchs" wanted to get their oil field back from Kurds "forgetting" to inform their mercenaries that Americans were among Kurds.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Exactly. Neither will win. Thus neither side should fire upon the other.

The Russians russian mercenaries who have nothing to do with russian government attacked, they were in the wrong.

Fixed for you. Also it seems that that attack has little to do with Assad's government, bunch of Syrian "oligarchs" wanted to get their oil field back from Kurds "forgetting" to inform their mercenaries that Americans were among Kurds.

Still Moscow's fault--they should be keeping their mercenaries on a shorter leash.

 

[barbos]

Exactly. Neither will win. Thus neither side should fire upon the other.

The Russians russian mercenaries who have nothing to do with russian government attacked, they were in the wrong.

Fixed for you. Also it seems that that attack has little to do with Assad's government, bunch of Syrian "oligarchs" wanted to get their oil field back from Kurds "forgetting" to inform their mercenaries that Americans were among Kurds.

Still Moscow's fault--they should be keeping their mercenaries on a shorter leash.

It's a free country

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Still Moscow's fault--they should be keeping their mercenaries on a shorter leash.

It's a free country

Nuclear diplomacy 101: There shall be no exchange of fire between two nuclear-armed nations.

During the cold war both sides were very careful about this. Both sides sent units into the other's territory (the U2 incident was simply one of the stealthy incursions come to light) but they were very careful to avoid an exchange of fire. Most of the incursions were by unarmed units, when that wasn't an option (subs) their rules of engagement were they could not fire even in self defense while in enemy territory (and the pursuit would always end that the 12 mile limit.)

Moscow was careless and allowed this rule to be broken. I'm not aware of any other such incident between the US and Russia. It has happened routinely between India and Pakistan but that's extremist elements in Pakistan trying to egg on a war.

 

[barbos]

Still Moscow's fault--they should be keeping their mercenaries on a shorter leash.

It's a free country

Nuclear diplomacy 101: There shall be no exchange of fire between two nuclear-armed nations.

But there were, during soviet occupation of Afganistan, Korean war, Vietnam even in Ukraine if you hold that opinion that russians are in Eastern Ukraine.
In this case as I said these were not regular army.

During the cold war both sides were very careful about this. Both sides sent units into the other's territory (the U2 incident was simply one of the stealthy incursions come to light) but they were very careful to avoid an exchange of fire. Most of the incursions were by unarmed units, when that wasn't an option (subs) their rules of engagement were they could not fire even in self defense while in enemy territory (and the pursuit would always end that the 12 mile limit.)

Moscow was careless and allowed this rule to be broken.

Actually, Moscow came to Syria first and by official invitation, so it was US who was careless. They should have stayed off the Syria

I'm not aware of any other such incident between the US and Russia. It has happened routinely between India and Pakistan but that's extremist elements in Pakistan trying to egg on a war.

As I said, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Korean war, Vietnam

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Nuclear diplomacy 101: There shall be no exchange of fire between two nuclear-armed nations.

But there were, during soviet occupation of Afganistan, Korean war, Vietnam even in Ukraine if you hold that opinion that russians are in Eastern Ukraine.
In this case as I said these were not regular army.

Russia always pretended those weren't Russian troops, thus avoiding the problem.

Actually, Moscow came to Syria first and by official invitation, so it was US who was careless. They should have stayed off the Syria

Areas of Syrian control you would be right. This wasn't an area under Syrian control.

 

[barbos]

Russia always pretended those weren't Russian troops, thus avoiding the problem.

Same as US.

Actually, Moscow came to Syria first and by official invitation, so it was US who was careless. They should have stayed off the Syria

Areas of Syrian control you would be right. This wasn't an area under Syrian control.

That's a meaningless distinction. Russians should have control of Syria, US - Iraq.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Same as US.

When have we pretended out troops weren't ours?

Areas of Syrian control you would be right. This wasn't an area under Syrian control.

That's a meaningless distinction. Russians should have control of Syria, US - Iraq.

The lines on the ground predate either of us entering the fray.

 

[Patooka]

That's a meaningless distinction. Russians should have control of Syria, US - Iraq.

Because when Sykes and Picot did that, the middle east was fixed forever.

 

[J842P]

That's a meaningless distinction. Russians should have control of Syria, US - Iraq.

Because when Sykes and Picot did that, the middle east was fixed forever.

While I get what you are saying, in the modern context, when the US and Russia are involved, the stakes are quite a bit higher than just the Middle East.

And unlike Sykes Picot, the Syrians invited the Russians.

 

[barbos]

When have we pretended out troops weren't ours?

You must be kidding, CIA & Latin America, rings a bell?
And question is ridiculous anyway, what Putin did was short term tactical lie which nobody believed anyway, just a way to get rid of noise from reporters. If anything it saved lives.

That's a meaningless distinction. Russians should have control of Syria, US - Iraq.

The lines on the ground predate either of us entering the fray.

Exactly, except Russia did not violate these lines and US did.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You must be kidding, CIA & Latin America, rings a bell?
And question is ridiculous anyway, what Putin did was short term tactical lie which nobody believed anyway, just a way to get rid of noise from reporters. If anything it saved lives.

The lines on the ground predate either of us entering the fray.

Exactly, except Russia did not violate these lines and US did.

The question was "troops". When we help locals they aren't our troops.

 

[barbos]

You must be kidding, CIA & Latin America, rings a bell?
And question is ridiculous anyway, what Putin did was short term tactical lie which nobody believed anyway, just a way to get rid of noise from reporters. If anything it saved lives.

The lines on the ground predate either of us entering the fray.

Exactly, except Russia did not violate these lines and US did.

The question was "troops". When we help locals they aren't our troops.

That's a meaningless distinction. US does not even need to pretend in such a fashion, you can pee on somebody's boots and call it a pee. In fact you do it all the time.

 

[funinspace]

And in other nearly non-news, the Saudi's launched missiles, via warplanes, into a wedding party in Yemen. The US has generally provided logistic and in-air refueling in support of their near genocidal operations upon Yemen.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/23/middleeast/saudi-yemen-wedding-airstrikes-intl/index.html

At least 33 people were killed and 41 wounded after airstrikes hit a wedding party in northwest Yemen on Sunday night.

Two missiles hit the celebration in the town of Hajja, several minutes apart, eyewitnesses and officials told CNN. At least 17 women and children were killed in the strikes, according to official sources.

At least there is one Democrat that seems to care...
Chris Murphy (CT) "tweeted:
We sell them the planes and the bombs. We provide intel and help them select the targets. We refuel their planes mid attack.

There is a U.S. imprint on every civilian death in Yemen."

 

[Axulus]

What is it with wedding parties and countries bombing them so frequently in the Middle East? How can this be a mistake?

By now wouldn't the wedding planners add a big, easy to read message viable from any aerial view: "Wedding Party In Progress, Women and Children Present, DO NOT BOMB!"

 

[bilby]

What is it with wedding parties and countries bombing them so frequently in the Middle East? How can this be a mistake?

By now wouldn't the wedding planners add a big, easy to read message viable from any aerial view: "Wedding Party In Progress, Women and Children Present, DO NOT BOMB!"

It's often deliberate. A wedding party is the one time that intelligence agencies can be reasonably sure that a particular individual will be in a given location, long enough in advance to arrange to target him. That the target's family and close friends are likely collateral damage is generally considered a bonus by such agencies - the "reasoning" being that a terrorist's family and close friends are likely in agreement with his political positions.

The idea that the US makes special effort to avoid killing women and children is a comforting myth, not a reality - The people making the decisions have long since decided that a few dead foreign women and children are a small price to pay to defend 'our' women and children from the possibility of being the victims of terrorists. And it seems highly unlikely that Saudi Arabia takes a more humane stance on the matter than the US.

A person who knows himself to be a likely target can make himself very hard to find. But family is important enough to them that they likely will not miss the wedding of a close family member. Perhaps some of them buy into the idea that nobody would be so callous as to bomb women and children at a wedding.

All that said, there is also a tradition in many areas of celebratory gunfire at weddings. A crowd of people firing into the air can look a lot like an attempt to shoot down a drone or strike aircraft. So that's probably also a contributing factor.

But mostly I think it's deliberate. Airstrikes are targeted at weddings for the same basic reason that police turn up at mobster's funerals - it's the one time that you know for sure where to find them and their associates.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What is it with wedding parties and countries bombing them so frequently in the Middle East? How can this be a mistake?

By now wouldn't the wedding planners add a big, easy to read message viable from any aerial view: "Wedding Party In Progress, Women and Children Present, DO NOT BOMB!"

Weddings are a big gathering of people from various locations--and thus make a good cover for illicit meetings.